Increasing Number Of Indicators Point To Society Destabilizing

[Moonglow]

I don't like gold diggin' women, they aren't even good enough for anal...

WTF is wrong with you? And that' a serious question.

Seek help.. you need it.

Ok fine, I see your point, anal is an option then...

 

[Moonglow]

Candy, it's a bait thread.

With no hook....er

 

[initforme]

1). Society is changing. Women are working now because THEY HAVE To. There is less time to raise kids so many working women make the choice not to have them. Why is this bad? Conservatives rail for self responsibility and being responsible enough to make the choice not to get married and have kids is honorable and responsible... birthrates declining be damned.
2). Raising a family on one salary is no longer feasible except for a small percentage of people. With wages stagnating, this will result is less families. People are choosing to get a house, nice cars, ec. That's their choice and not a sign of society declining.

There are 4 young couples in our neighborhood. Only 1 out of the 4 has kids. The other 3 are choosing to focus on their careers. They don't want kids. Again its their choice and if that's what they want then how is it bad? They are both working and don't have time to raise the kids so they choose not to have them. Again this is not a sign of decline.

 

[Rikurzhen]

1). Society is changing. Women are working now because THEY HAVE To. There is less time to raise kids so many working women make the choice not to have them. Why is this bad? Conservatives rail for self responsibility and being responsible enough to make the choice not to get married and have kids is honorable and responsible... birthrates declining be damned.
2). Raising a family on one salary is no longer feasible except for a small percentage of people. With wages stagnating, this will result is less families. People are choosing to get a house, nice cars, ec. That's their choice and not a sign of society declining.

There are 4 young couples in our neighborhood. Only 1 out of the 4 has kids. The other 3 are choosing to focus on their careers. They don't want kids. Again its their choice and if that's what they want then how is it bad? They are both working and don't have time to raise the kids so they choose not to have them. Again this is not a sign of decline.

Just curious about whether you read all the comments in this thread or just the OP?

 

[initforme]

"
These higher taxes on the workers means that we have increasing delays in initial family formation. Look at the data in the OP. When couples start their families later in life a consequence is smaller families, thereby making replacement population levels hard to achieve"

Smaller families are a good thing. People making the choice to have no kids or only 1 child are courageous and honorable and responsible. Responsible people have as many as they can pay for... which in America middle class take home pay doesn't amount to being able to afford much.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Smaller families are a good thing. People making the choice to have no kids or only 1 child are courageous and honorable and responsible.

No, they're mostly freeloaders. Being a freeloader on society is a bad thing, not to be encouraged or celebrated.

 

[Slyhunter]

Read this compilation of statistics from Bloomberg. Nothing is heading in the right direction. Hey, let's cheer Gay Marriage because that's all that's important.

Most of this can be laid at the feet of liberals. The solutions to reverse the indicators pretty much require we destroy the embedded liberal values we operate under.

Look at this starting fact:

A decline in wages of young men has resulted in fewer good candidates for women to choose as partners, University of Minnesota professor Steven Ruggles found in a paper on marriage, family and economic opportunity in the U.S. since 1850 to be presented this month at a Pennsylvania State University conference.

The proportion of men ages 25 to 29 able to support a family of four at the poverty line dropped from 78 percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 2012, according to Ruggles’s research. Even with the rise of dual-income households, this has had an effect, he said.

“The primary reason for the decline of marriage since 1975 is the decline of economic opportunity, especially for young men and especially compared with their fathers,” Ruggles said in an interview. “I project that marriage will continue to decline for at least 15 years, based on projections of the patterns of young adults.”
​

Women's economic empowerment creates a crowding out effect and depresses wages in the labor market. Women are hypergamous so this reduces the pool of men that they find marriageable. Women have traded away a stable marriage culture for a women must work culture. What falls out from this?

About 23 percent of men 25 years and older and 17 percent of women have never married, a recent Pew Research Center analysis finds. That gap is widening: in 1960, it stood at 10 percent of men and 8 percent of women.

When today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share -- 25 percent -- is likely to have never been married, according to Pew’s projections.

Age at first marriage has also climbed, Pew found. Men, who can reproduce longer, have long married later, yet economics is likely playing a role in delaying nuptials for both genders.

The findings “suggest that never-married women place a high premium on finding a spouse with a steady job,” the report states. “However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.”
​

Marriage is delayed, women's biological clicks start winding down, more women end up as spinsters and the birth rate declines.

Postponing marriage has contributed to a drop in the number of births in the U.S., which has fallen 8.3 percent to 3.96 million in 2013 from 4.32 million in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The number of births declined to a record 62.9 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

“Most births still occur within marriage so the birth rate is expected to decline further as age at marriage increases,” said demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president for U.S. programs for the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.

Fewer marriages are leading to less home ownership, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
​

All of the factors listed in the article play off each other. Change one variable and it affects another variable, which in turn affects yet another variable, or multiple variables. You should read the article to get the full picture. These liberal reforms to how we construct society and now paying off and the outcomes are disastrous. That home that you have and plan on selling when you downsize, who is going to buy it if fewer young people are in the market because they're not marrying and starting families at the traditional rate?

Liberals never seem to understand that unintended consequences always undermine their airy-fairy plans.

You seem to be railing against women working and being educated, specifically citing their economic empowerment as the root cause of the drop in marriage rates. Are you then arguing that liberals support women working and being educated while conservatives oppose this?

men marry women because they need them for sex.
Women marry men because they need them to pay the bills.
Now that more Women can pay their own damn bills they are less likely to tolerate men and thus marriage rates go down.

I can't find a woman worth marrying. I'm 50 and single. The only women I seem to like are either too young for me or too married for me. When I find a single women she usually has a personality that makes me run for the hills.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here's something interesting to think about as our demographics change in order to cope with what liberals have unleashed on society:

As the income gap between high and low income families has widened has the achievement gap between children in high and low income families also widened?​

The answer, in brief, is yes. The achievement gap between children from high and low income families is roughly 30 to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born twenty-five years earlier. In fact, it appears that the income achievement gap has been growing for at least fifty years, though the data are less certain for cohorts of children born before 1970. . . .​

What he doesn't account for are assortative mating and changing demographics. We're baking income and achievement inequality right into the very fabric of our society.