- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Less than 40% of people born in the 90s are married
Posted on 12/3/24 at 5:30 pm to Lima Whiskey
Posted on 12/3/24 at 5:30 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
I learned this recently on X (of all things) but the Soviets introduced them in an effort to destabilize society, and create a tabula rasa. They ended up walking back on no fault divorces because the consequences were such a disaster.
Didn't know that, but it makes sense.
The moron above talking about marriage being stupid definitely doesn't know it.
A society without the nuclear family will collapse. And will do so with the quickness.
1
Posted on 12/3/24 at 5:31 pm to DesScorp
quote:
No we wouldn’t. When a woman hits 30 her fertility starts dropping like a rock. Its why you see so many of these older women crying about failed IVF attempts. They waited too damn long to have a child. Demographics is destiny, and a people that doesn’t have children will be replaced by a people that do.
This.
Like I said before, I used to think like that guy but have realized that the problem isn't waiting to grow up to get married, the problem is that we're growing up far too slowly.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 5:35 pm to Shexter
quote:
Also repeal alimony - Outside of an abusive marriage, if you choose to leave, you're on your own.
Repeal child support if they remarry
Agree on the second item..."child support" in its current state has nothing to do with actually making sure children are financially supported. That whole idea needs an enema.
As for alimony, I think repealing the no fault divorce solves that one. IMO whoever choses to leave and/or is responsible for the marriage breaking up is who takes it in the shorts financially.
If that's the husband, then yeah, he pays. If it's the wife, then SHE pays.
And whoever the non-responsible party is keeps custody of the kids.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 5:44 pm to wackatimesthree
I think even the nuclear family is an aberration, if that makes sense?
Historically, we lived together in extended family units. Modern nuclear families require both the husband and wife to take on a much heavier load than was a normal just 100 years ago. And that stress must be bad for our relationships, and the health of our marriages.
Historically, we lived together in extended family units. Modern nuclear families require both the husband and wife to take on a much heavier load than was a normal just 100 years ago. And that stress must be bad for our relationships, and the health of our marriages.
This post was edited on 12/3/24 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 12/3/24 at 5:46 pm to Dire Wolf
And the curve is already leveling off. This is civilization destroying, not climate change.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 10:05 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
Historically, we lived together in extended family units
That depends on exactly when and where in history.
Extended family units haven't always lived together under the same roof (although sometimes that was true), but usually did live in close proximity to each other.
Close enough for sisters in law to share laundry and child care and cooking duties and for husbands and fathers to help build each other's dwellings and farm and hunt common land and the like, to your point.
With the modern conveniences we have today I'm not sure that's still necessary (or that it even helps all that much, since almost no one is building their own house or farming their own food) but the emotional/psychological/social effects of children growing up in broken homes and without fathers in the house is well documented at this point.
It doesn't work. Society literally breaks down.
It's why crime is so high in the black community. It's why something like 2/3+ of women have a mental health diagnosis in 2024.
I'm not making a case against extended family living, understand.
Heck, the loss of extended family living may have helped contribute to the loss of the nuclear family.
But it's that second loss that is catastrophic.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 10:13 am to Dire Wolf
The lawyers and the courts have ruined marriage.
Say what you want, but it’s important for a stable society.
The larger the increase in single mothers, the poorer and more crime ridden our society will become.
Not even talking about the religious aspect of it.
Say what you want, but it’s important for a stable society.
The larger the increase in single mothers, the poorer and more crime ridden our society will become.
Not even talking about the religious aspect of it.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 10:18 am to Dire Wolf
Well the destruction of the family unit seems to be working out for those who benefit from it.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 10:40 am to Deuces
quote:
The lawyers and the courts have ruined marriage.
Say what you want, but it’s important for a stable society.
i don't doubt that this plays a role but in my mind, it is largely an economic decision
frakanomics did podcast a few years ago on the baby boom tied to the fracking boom
LINK
quote:
DUBNER: The underlying idea is that one reason fewer mothers have been getting married over the past few decades is because fewer men have good economic prospects and therefore if there is a job boom or a wage boom, that would theoretically increase the supply of men with better economic prospects. Yes? That’s the theory that you wanted to test?
KEARNEY: That was the hypothesis. That’s right.
DUBNER: OK. And how’d that work out? What did you actually learn from your data?
KEARNEY: My speculation going in was that an increase in the economic opportunities for men would lead to a reduction in nonmarital childbearing. In fact, the data showed the opposite. Or let’s say it didn’t support that. The data do show that in response to these increased economic activity and earnings potential we do see an increase in births. But interestingly there’s the same response among married births and nonmarried births and no increase in marriage. This does not offer support for what I’ll call a “reverse marriageable men” story, where, if we see more marriageable men, we’ll see an increase in marriage. The data do not support that.
DUBNER: OK, so there’s a fertility boom when there’s a fracking boom. How big is the fertility boom and can you compare it to the size of the fracking boom?
KEARNEY: What our estimates suggest is that an additional $1,000 of fracking production per capita is associated with an increase of six births per thousand women.
quote:
KEARNEY: It’s actually consistent with previous evidence. One of the most interesting things in our research was a comparison to the coal boom and bust situation. It’s a similar economic shock. It’s a similar industry. They’re in similar areas: the Appalachian region in both.
DUBNER: A similar employment cohort then as well? Education-wise, age-wise, stuff like that?
KEARNEY: That’s right. It was just a different period. The coal boom and bust happened in the ’70s and ’80s. What we find is that a 10 percent increase in earnings associated with the coal boom led to very similar-sized increases in married birth rates, as it did in the fracking boom: an 8 percent increase in marital birth rates for a 10 percent increase in earnings with the coal boom, and a 12 percent increase in married birth rates associated with the fracking boom. But the nonmarital birth response is very different: A 10 percent increase in earnings associated with the coal boom actually led to a reduction in nonmarital births. But a 12 percent increase in nonmarital births with a 10 percent increase in earnings associated with fracking. That’s where the response differed.
In the earlier period, when earnings increased associated with the coal boom, marriage increased. And as we’ve been saying, there’s no increase with the fracking boom.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 10:52 am to RougeDawg
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/30/25 at 10:20 pm
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:11 am to lsuconnman
quote:
You have it backwards. Education and employment trends clearly show marriage poses the a greater financial risk for the GenZ women.
No it doesn't.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:32 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Also, there's just too much happening in the first 25 years of life that is corrosive to marriage and it significantly limits the window of "eligibility", especially for women.
I would say it affects men a lot more. A woman that is decent looking and not trashy could pull a successful man even if she worked at a 7/11 or a Publix. A guy in the same situation couldn't do that, he would need to make at least $80k a year.
A lot of women who went to college and worked still got married fairly young before the 2000's.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:38 am to Dire Wolf
Now do divorce rates. I bet a good many of the 30% are already divorced.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:41 am to Dire Wolf
have three kids born in the 90's none are married but two are in lone term relationships. Marriage has no timetable now and I see nothing wrong with that.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:47 am to lsuconnman
quote:
You have it backwards. Education and employment trends clearly show marriage poses the a greater financial risk for the GenZ women.
No, he doesn’t. Family law judges strongly favor women. Men are not going into divorces and getting alimony and child support lol.
The trend you’re talking about (Gen Z women getting the majority of college degrees and having better access to high-status jobs) doesn’t make marriage risky to Gen Z women. It just makes them not want to marry Gen Z men because women don’t want to marry a man who makes less than them or has a lower socioeconomic status than them. It doesn’t even get to the “I like him but I’m worried about the financial ramifications of divorce” stage because they never get out of the “I could do better / I deserve better” stage.
This post was edited on 12/4/24 at 11:47 am
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:47 am to Limitlesstigers
quote:
I would say it affects men a lot more. A woman that is decent looking and not trashy could pull a successful man even if she worked at a 7/11 or a Publix. A guy in the same situation couldn't do that, he would need to make at least $80k a year.
A lot of women who went to college and worked still got married fairly young before the 2000's.
But you should also understand they still got married later than their predecessors and then the next generation is getting married later than THEIR predecessors.
The boomers were the first generations to buck the trend of a large cohort of people having children aged 18-25.
Nobody aged 15-25 is doing anything that makes them more ready for marriage on a physical/emotional level. If anything they're doing things that make them less worthy.
Our problem is the teen to early adulthood age range which has an entire culture and industry built around casual dating and the promotion of short term qualities over long term qualities.
You cannot have someone grow up in modern American culture and then expect to turn around and understand the importance and significance of marriage.
Too many married people couldn't possibly explain to others or their kids on why getting married is best or how or what qualities are good for marriage. It just doesn't happen and the lack of skill in this area is rearing it's ugly head in the younger generations.
Parents allowed their kids to get swept up by pop culture sexuality and chalked it up to "kids will be kids" without considering the real damage that can be done in the absolute prime of their lives.
We turned from "use those looks for a husband" into "OH girl you're still so hot have fun while you can before settling down!"
This of course is steeped in the boomer divorce rates and marital issues and then toss in the college scam, deeper radical feminism, and macro-economic changes and you get what we see.
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:50 am to Fat and Happy
quote:
Much less seeing how bad a guy gets beat down in family court over child support.
It's more than child support. "Why don't I just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house."
Posted on 12/4/24 at 11:52 am to Dire Wolf
Smart. Dumb arse government contract 
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News