Interesting stuff, it's clear from this economics perspective that sexual behavior is tightly coupled to risks and societal influence. As birth control became more available, the risk of premarital sex went down dramatically. I think societal norms are slowly catching up with this, hence why "we" (i.e. Western nations) are more liberal now than say 70 years ago.
Here's a related thought experiment: could ever increasing divorce rates be explained similarly by risk? There is much less risk of divorcing now, women are about as financially independent as men, and it could be argued there is a greater safety net for single parents (e.g. [1]). This is interesting because it would imply that in the natural state of things, men's primary family purpose is/was as a provider/protector of some sort. So as that need diminishes, perhaps it shouldn't be the norm to expect everyone to get married.
>So as that need diminishes, perhaps it shouldn't be the norm to expect everyone to get married.
just look at Sweden. Strongest social net and government child support benefits - lowest marriage rate with highest rate of out-of-wedlock births(~60%).
Note also that in Sweden 60% of divorces are initiated by the woman, and that it's the men that suffer more from a divorce and suffer long-lasting severe negative effects on mental health.
Unfortunately, it's coupled with short-term risks and probably doesn't accurately reflect the cost of high divorce rates, low birth within wedlock rates, and both parents working rates. While some people do make a single parent work, or both parents working with children work, there is a huge impact of divorce and single parents on their children. Those long term effects are not reflected as well by economic incentives in those situations.
On the first row of result images in the "divorce rate" search you posted there are 5 graphs. 2 of them measure "divorces per 1000 people", and 3 measure "divorces per 1000 marriages".
In the divorce per 1000 marriages case, it would appear to be independent of the marriage rate.
a) Divorce rates are actually decreasing
b) They aren't independent of the marriage rate though (as the marriage rate is decreasing for the people most likely to get divorced)
> Divorce rates would tend to decrease if marriage rates decrease.
I agree. That is happening. So the premise that divorce rates are ever increasing is incorrect as applied to the whole population and it is wrong as applied to the married population.
I agree with you but would quibble on one thing "women are about as financially independent as men"... I would say that women are about 70-80% as financially independent as men, due to the gender pay gap. That gap is even higher if you consider women's under representation in high paying jobs (e.g. tech).
However... That's light years better the past when women were essentially considered to be the property of their father or husband.
I didn't downvote you, but I can see why others did. Unequal pay doesn't mean unequal independence.
I'm in debt with a middle class job. I'm just as financially independent (in the short term) as someone making $250k, or someone with no debt making 60% of what I do.
He's alluding to the old 77% canard which has already been debunked. There's no pay gap between genders, the pay gap is between women who never married and women who have married at some point regardless of present status.
Something else he gets wrong is this "under representation in high paying jobs" canard. That's bad approximation again. The under-representation is in thing-oriented jobs versus relationship-oriented jobs. In Sweden, in all their equality, we still see mostly male engineers and mostly female nurses. It just happens that thing-oriented jobs pay more.
I'm assuming you're being downvoted for your flippant response, but you raise a good point.
I can't find the source, but an article was laying out that despite all of the social benefits offered to women in Scandinavian countries (child care, generous time off, etc) a lot of women were choosing not to work. That obviously skews the "pay gap".
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time working women earned 81 percent of what full-time working men earned in 2010... The wage gap statistic, however, doesn’t compare two similarly situated co-workers of different sexes, working in the same industry, performing the same work, for the same number of hours a day. It merely reflects the median earnings of all men and women classified as full-time workers.... the average full-time working man spends 8.14 hours a day on the job, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman
So yes. The wage gap is real. But no, it doesn't necessarily mean that women are paid less for the same work.
In the context of this conversation, about the financial independence of women that 81% figure seems entirely appropriate. It's fair to argue about the reasons for it, but that doesn't seem relevant to the facts relating the financial independence of women vs men.
> In the context of this conversation, about the financial independence of women that 81% figure seems entirely appropriate. It's fair to argue about the reasons for it, but that doesn't seem relevant to the facts relating the financial independence of women vs men.
The reasons for it are extremely relevant. If the pay gap is primarily a result of factors outside of an individual's control (e.g. sex discrimination) then it makes women less independent, but if all a woman has to do to make the same money as a man is to work the same job in the same way then she has the same level of independence, regardless of whether other women choose lower paying jobs.
> Do some women take low paying jobs because they are often the primary caregiver for children?
There are undoubtedly many different reasons, which mostly boil down to individuals making decisions to meet societal expectations even though the alternative choice(s) were equally available.
> Nevertheless, the pay gap is a fact.
The trouble is it's a misleading fact because people will assume the primary cause is employer sex discrimination when it isn't, which changes both the consequences of the pay gap and the solutions to reduce it.
> The trouble is it's a misleading fact because people will assume...
You can't blame facts for the ways in which they might be misinterpreted.
Besides, this is not a new idea. In my observation, people are now quite used to the idea that the pay gap is a result of a much broader social gender dynamic, and that employer discrimination is only one part of that picture.
As someone mentioned, looking at only divorce rates doesn't paint the clearest picture. The data isn't as consistent as I led on. It would be more accurate, and pretty much equivalent to the discussion, to cite the declining marriage rates.
What's common in articles like these is the implicit assumption that:
> Men are bachelors because they're failing to mature, falling behind in school and the workplace, etc, etc
How about a more economic argument, like in this submission? Or rather, why not just ask a better question - why are they failing to mature? The answers would be something along the lines of: there are no incentives to do so.
If women don't need to get married as much (lower demand), their price (standards) must therefore increase. E.g. "I'm not really interesting in having a sweet right now, but if it's a mousse chocolate cake..." Maybe the price rises past the point where it's worth it to buy, from the male perspective. Also this means less and less men can compete.
> Here's a related thought experiment: could ever increasing divorce rates be explained similarly by risk? There is much less risk of divorcing now, women are about as financially independent as men, and it could be argued there is a greater safety net for single parents (e.g. [1]).
Thought experiment? Isn't that what most people assume to begin with?
> This is interesting because it would imply that in the natural state of things, men's primary family purpose is/was as a provider/protector of some sort. So as that need diminishes, perhaps it shouldn't be the norm to expect everyone to get married.
On the other hand, nurturing functions have also to a degree been delegated to kindergartens, daycare and schools.
And divorce courts still seem to want that sweet dough from the primary income provider when a divorce does happen. Though that point isn't relevant to people who never get married to begin with. And I guess society changing doesn't stop lawyers to keep wanting money... or divorcees that benefit from the divorce courts.
Here's a related thought experiment: could ever increasing divorce rates be explained similarly by risk? There is much less risk of divorcing now, women are about as financially independent as men, and it could be argued there is a greater safety net for single parents (e.g. [1]). This is interesting because it would imply that in the natural state of things, men's primary family purpose is/was as a provider/protector of some sort. So as that need diminishes, perhaps it shouldn't be the norm to expect everyone to get married.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_...