Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, January 25, 2012
Economy Single America
Posted by Charles Mudede on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:21 AM
CNN:
Oh, how things have changed. Americans are now within mere percentage points of being a majority single nation: Only 51% of adults today are married, according to census data. And 28% of all households now consist of just one person — the highest level in U.S. history. That second statistic may appear less dramatic than the first, but it's actually changing much faster: The percentage of Americans living by themselves has doubled since 1960.The interesting and telling piece of information in all of this concerns Portland. In that city, only 34% of the households have a single occupant—in Seattle it's 42%.
The extraordinary rise of living alone is among the greatest social changes since the baby boom. Until recently, no culture in human history had sustained large numbers of people in places of their own. Today more than 40% of households have just one occupant in cities such as Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Denver, St. Louis, and Seattle. In Manhattan, nearly 50% of households consist of a single occupant, a number that seems impossibly high until you discover that the rate is similar in London and Paris, and even higher — a staggering 60% — in Stockholm.
2
For all the talk of how wonderful marriage or living together is, no one really champions the freedom of living single.
6
I wonder if/how those rates compare with rates of depression. Do people who live with groups of other people (family, most likely, but not just a spouse) have lower rates of depression than people who live alone?
I wonder this for two reasons: I’ve heard that Americans have higher rates of depression than other countries and now we learn that we live alone more often than not. (And we evolved as group-dwellers, it is generally believed/understood.)
And the other reason is personal nonsense that no one would care to have to read about…
I wonder this for two reasons: I’ve heard that Americans have higher rates of depression than other countries and now we learn that we live alone more often than not. (And we evolved as group-dwellers, it is generally believed/understood.)
And the other reason is personal nonsense that no one would care to have to read about…
9
#2 - No one really champions giving us tax breaks or any of the other perks of married life. It's time for a political movement that will fight for the rights of singles!
10
Sort of shows how often marriage in the past has been based on desperation. Jane Austen novels are fun to read, but they look different when you realize that a lot of those marriage-seeking gals aren't just looking for their One True Love, they're looking to escape a future of hopeless poverty.
14
@9- I'd personally like to see a single's pride parade along with those tax breaks. It's amazing how a group that is soon to become a majority can still be so clearly considered an underclass - socially, institutionally and financially.
15
There actually is a singles rights movement, but it's very small and doesn't get much attention. The problem is, a large percentage of people who are single don't really want to be, feel bad about it, and would jump at the chance to leave the ranks!
16
@12: If you can't be naked in your home with your partner any time you want, you are, as they say on the innertubes, doin' it wrong.
17
That is nothing new or interesting about Seattle having a higher percentage of singles than Portland. It's been that way for years. What actually is interesting is that Atlanta is suddenly the second highest. It's been DC, Seattle, and SF for a long time -- when did Atlanta become number 2, and why?
18
These numbers point out the lie in Danny's assertion that Marriage is alive and well.
Only half of American adults are married currently,
compared to over 70% 50 years ago.
Married two parent households provide the best environment to raise children into functional contributing adults.
Children raised in other circumstances find themselves featured in Danny's"Every Child Deserves...." and camping out in public parks demanding that the government take care of them.
Only half of American adults are married currently,
compared to over 70% 50 years ago.
Married two parent households provide the best environment to raise children into functional contributing adults.
Children raised in other circumstances find themselves featured in Danny's"Every Child Deserves...." and camping out in public parks demanding that the government take care of them.
20
@6 We also have higher rates of mental health workers and campaigns to encourage people to be open about their mental health issues. It could be like autism where the actual rates are not increasing, or higher than other places, but just that we screen people more thoroughly and classify a wider ranger of people as having it.
"Until recently, no culture in human history had sustained large numbers of people in places of their own. "
But then no culture has really had the ability to do so until recently either. It takes a fair bit of resources and technology to provide large numbers of people with their own self contained dwelling.
"Until recently, no culture in human history had sustained large numbers of people in places of their own. "
But then no culture has really had the ability to do so until recently either. It takes a fair bit of resources and technology to provide large numbers of people with their own self contained dwelling.
22
@16 I've never been married, but I've also rarely lived alone.
Multiple occupancy does not equate to married / partnered (just as single occupancy doesn't equate to single relationship status), and I doubt my housemates wanna see my hairy arse wandering round the shared living areas.
The really interesting question is; if we're such social animals, why do we (given the financial means) choose to live alone in such numbers?
Multiple occupancy does not equate to married / partnered (just as single occupancy doesn't equate to single relationship status), and I doubt my housemates wanna see my hairy arse wandering round the shared living areas.
The really interesting question is; if we're such social animals, why do we (given the financial means) choose to live alone in such numbers?
23
18, but this trend started in the 60s, LONG before same sex marriage was even considered, so you can't blame the gays. Gay marriage will have no impact on straight people's marriage plans.
24
There is no same sex marriage in Japan, yet they have one of the lowest marriage, and procreation rates.
25
@23 Conservatives say that the marriage equality debate is just the latest battle in a war on the traditional family that began in the early '60s. That was when the pill became widely available and women working outside the home became more common. In Mr. Santorum's view, that was when things ceased to be the way they are meant to be.
26
@18 - Nothing in that statistic suggests that more children are being raised out of wedlock. It's just as likely that, in addition to fewer people getting married, fewer, also, are breeding.
Since there's no intrinsic value to making more, this strikes me as fairly value neutral (and I say so as a happily married man).
@19 - And?
Since there's no intrinsic value to making more, this strikes me as fairly value neutral (and I say so as a happily married man).
@19 - And?
27
@26 More people living alone does not necessarily imply more out of wedlock births. However, I think most experts agree that the proportion of children being raised by single mothers is far higher today than it was in 1959.
28
@25 They are always living in the past. That Is why they will never be the future, no matter how they try.
29
25
Thank You.
Propagandizing Homosexuality as Normal! and Natural! is just one facet in the corruption of American moral values.
PreMarital sex, Out-of-Wed birthrates, Adultery, Divorce, Pornography, Prostitution, PitBullies and Murphy Brown are also among the culprits.
The net result is fewer children being born and raised in stable married households and resulting ever greater percentages of "adults" who are dysfunctional and incapable of contributing to society.
OWS really is the terrible twos tantrum of a generation that expects mommy and daddy and uncle sam to provide free higher education and free health care and subsidized housing and wipe their shitty asses for them (oh, and did we mention that they have no plans to pay one cent of Federal Income Taxes at all.....).
Thank You.
Propagandizing Homosexuality as Normal! and Natural! is just one facet in the corruption of American moral values.
PreMarital sex, Out-of-Wed birthrates, Adultery, Divorce, Pornography, Prostitution, PitBullies and Murphy Brown are also among the culprits.
The net result is fewer children being born and raised in stable married households and resulting ever greater percentages of "adults" who are dysfunctional and incapable of contributing to society.
OWS really is the terrible twos tantrum of a generation that expects mommy and daddy and uncle sam to provide free higher education and free health care and subsidized housing and wipe their shitty asses for them (oh, and did we mention that they have no plans to pay one cent of Federal Income Taxes at all.....).
30
Since gay marriage was legalized 8 years ago in Massachusetts, the divorce rate dropped to pre-WWII rates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wils…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wils…
31
25/29, One could just as easily (more easily really, since that was legalized about the same time this trend started happening) say that legalizing interracial marriage has led to the decline in marriage. Should we have not allowed that? Unless you have data that supports your assertions, you're just making uneducated statements.
We don't withhold equal rights because of baseless statements, or even on the possibility that something might happen. I.E. All the baseless claims of all the horrible things that would happen if the races were allowed to mingle.
We don't withhold equal rights because of baseless statements, or even on the possibility that something might happen. I.E. All the baseless claims of all the horrible things that would happen if the races were allowed to mingle.
32
26
Really?
The percent of adults married drops by a THIRD and you can't infer that fewer children live in married households?
No doubt your mommy has to explain Sunday funnies to you as well.
Butt, you do point out another aspect of the Death of the American Family-
the Qunited States of Gommorica will not produce enough children to sustain its population.
Social Scientists and Darwin can explain to you (with pictures if needed) what the consequences of that are.
And? #19 was answering the question in #17.
you are a tedious little bitch, aren't you.....
Really?
The percent of adults married drops by a THIRD and you can't infer that fewer children live in married households?
No doubt your mommy has to explain Sunday funnies to you as well.
Butt, you do point out another aspect of the Death of the American Family-
the Qunited States of Gommorica will not produce enough children to sustain its population.
Social Scientists and Darwin can explain to you (with pictures if needed) what the consequences of that are.
And? #19 was answering the question in #17.
you are a tedious little bitch, aren't you.....
33
@22,
Because living with other people is a massive pain in the ass. It's fantastic IF you find someone you can get along with, who's about on the same page as you regarding noise, cleanliness, and household responsibilities, but a fucking nightmare if there are too many differences. Even in my best roommate situations, I sometimes still got sick of seeing them every damn day.
Because living with other people is a massive pain in the ass. It's fantastic IF you find someone you can get along with, who's about on the same page as you regarding noise, cleanliness, and household responsibilities, but a fucking nightmare if there are too many differences. Even in my best roommate situations, I sometimes still got sick of seeing them every damn day.
34
Since the number of people in "your household" is defined by you + your spouse + any dependents, the "single household" category actually includes any long-term cohabiting couples who are neither married nor have children. I suspect that the increase in the percentage of "single households," particularly in urban areas, has more to do with young couples waiting longer to get married/have children than it does with an actual increase in people living alone.
35
In 2000 there were 2.3 million marriages and 280 million people in the country.
in 2010 there were 2 million marriages and 308 million people.
In just one decade marriage dropped 13% though the population increased 10%.
The rate of marriage dropped from .82 to .64
Marriage is disappearing in America.
in 2010 there were 2 million marriages and 308 million people.
In just one decade marriage dropped 13% though the population increased 10%.
The rate of marriage dropped from .82 to .64
Marriage is disappearing in America.
36
@22 I wonder if safety has anything to do with it. (Pre)Historically, humans had to band together for food and safety (among other reasons), and now our immediate safety and food supplies aren’t utterly dependent upon living in the same structure with other people. So without the survival imperative, we’ve come to appreciate mid-day nakedness, the occasional pile of laundry and the benefit of watching whatever the hell we want when we want …or something like that.
37
@34 don't forget the impact the Duggars and their friends' families have on the numbers. With twenty people on average in those homes, it tends to skew the average a bit.
38
30
interesting link.
It shows that in 2004 the marriage rate in Mass was 6.5
In 2010 it was 5.6
a 14% drop in six years.
and only four states in the country had a lower marriage rate than Mass.
Marriage is dying in Mass.......
interesting link.
It shows that in 2004 the marriage rate in Mass was 6.5
In 2010 it was 5.6
a 14% drop in six years.
and only four states in the country had a lower marriage rate than Mass.
Marriage is dying in Mass.......
39
31
We realize you girls have great sport vanquishing your fundy straw man arguments
and how terribly manly it makes Danny feel to best Maggy here on the pages of Slog
but you and Danny and Maggy miss the big picture-
legalization of homosexual "marriage" is not as much a cause of the destruction of marriage as it is a symptom that marriage is terminal.
We realize you girls have great sport vanquishing your fundy straw man arguments
and how terribly manly it makes Danny feel to best Maggy here on the pages of Slog
but you and Danny and Maggy miss the big picture-
legalization of homosexual "marriage" is not as much a cause of the destruction of marriage as it is a symptom that marriage is terminal.
40
@31 Reliable available birth control makes it easier for single people to get laid, hence removing a major part of the incentive to get married. Women having a wider range of career choices makes makes single motherhood less onerous. I can't think of a casual connection between allowing interracial marriage and the breakdown of traditional family. Can you?
41
38, Marriage rates dropped much more in states like Texas, and Tennessee, two very homophobic states. Teen pregnancy and unwed births are also higher in those states. It seems that gay marriage slowed the decline in Mass compared to the moral and upright south.
42
@41 I would think a lower marriage rate, combined with a lower divorce rate would be a good thing. That would mean people were actually taking their wedding vows seriously.
43
@32 -
I can infer a lot; inference, however, is a terrible process for discerning truth. At best, one can derive a hypothesis therefrom. To hold this inference as a statement of fact assumes more than I'm willing to take as axiomatic. Isn't it possible, even likely, that in addition to not marrying, a fair number of these people aren't breeding?
I can say that, despite being married, the majority of people I know are single and live alone, or dating but maintaining individual residences. Anecdote is no better, but also no worse, a mean for discerning truth than inference.
Perhaps not at current rates. What is the objective value of maintaining current rate of population? Most population of organisms wax and wane, and the human is no more objectively valuable (given that there may well be no such thing as objective value to begin with) a species than a termite or a virus. I mean, I may value humans more (termites don't buy tickets to my shows or cook me breakfast), but I'm still not sure why I should lobby for new ones. After all, they keep making new ones even without encouragement.
As to the "And?", I admit to not having read the post @17 to which @19 responded. So where I previously wondered what the significance of homosexuals living singly was, I now wonder how one comes to infer that homosexuals--who aren't around in any higher numbers now than at any time during our lives, who exist in the same numbers in repressive nations like Saudi Arabia and progressive ones like Sweden or the Netherlands--are responsible for the value neutral phenomenon of singles living in Atlanta.
Only in that I bother responding to ubiquitous, bed-wetting trolls.
More...
The percent of adults married drops by a THIRD and you can't infer that fewer children live in married households?
I can infer a lot; inference, however, is a terrible process for discerning truth. At best, one can derive a hypothesis therefrom. To hold this inference as a statement of fact assumes more than I'm willing to take as axiomatic. Isn't it possible, even likely, that in addition to not marrying, a fair number of these people aren't breeding?
I can say that, despite being married, the majority of people I know are single and live alone, or dating but maintaining individual residences. Anecdote is no better, but also no worse, a mean for discerning truth than inference.
the Qunited States of Gommorica will not produce enough children to sustain its population.
Perhaps not at current rates. What is the objective value of maintaining current rate of population? Most population of organisms wax and wane, and the human is no more objectively valuable (given that there may well be no such thing as objective value to begin with) a species than a termite or a virus. I mean, I may value humans more (termites don't buy tickets to my shows or cook me breakfast), but I'm still not sure why I should lobby for new ones. After all, they keep making new ones even without encouragement.
As to the "And?", I admit to not having read the post @17 to which @19 responded. So where I previously wondered what the significance of homosexuals living singly was, I now wonder how one comes to infer that homosexuals--who aren't around in any higher numbers now than at any time during our lives, who exist in the same numbers in repressive nations like Saudi Arabia and progressive ones like Sweden or the Netherlands--are responsible for the value neutral phenomenon of singles living in Atlanta.
you are a tedious little bitch, aren't you.....
Only in that I bother responding to ubiquitous, bed-wetting trolls.
44
@27 -
Sure, I'll buy that. This doesn't strike me as being related--at least in terms of causation--to an increase in the number of single people. Would you or would you not imagine that most people uninterested in marriage are also uninterested in children? Our undocumented troll appears to be conflating separate phenomena.
However, I think most experts agree that the proportion of children being raised by single mothers is far higher today than it was in 1959.
Sure, I'll buy that. This doesn't strike me as being related--at least in terms of causation--to an increase in the number of single people. Would you or would you not imagine that most people uninterested in marriage are also uninterested in children? Our undocumented troll appears to be conflating separate phenomena.
45
How are they defining "single" - by tax filing status or by census data? sounds like census data, which makes all the speculation about unmarried people living together in the comments above specious.
Seattle has a large stock of studios - how much of that 8% difference between Seattle & Portland is driven by the borderline affordability of studios?
I can just afford my studio. I can't afford a 1BR; if the studio option wasn't open to me I would be forced to live with house-mates. It's an easy choice to sacrifice square footage for privacy.
Seattle has a large stock of studios - how much of that 8% difference between Seattle & Portland is driven by the borderline affordability of studios?
I can just afford my studio. I can't afford a 1BR; if the studio option wasn't open to me I would be forced to live with house-mates. It's an easy choice to sacrifice square footage for privacy.
46
42, but states like Texas and Tenn marriage rates have declined more, while their divorce rates are higher.
47
@44 An argument could be made that both are the result of changing attitudes towards sex and gender roles.
48
Marriage Troll –
Doesn't the phrase "living alone" mean that there are no children in the home, since that would be living with another human? Or are they referring only to adults? Are children not people after all?
How you managed to drag single parenting into this is a credit to your trollness. Well done.
Doesn't the phrase "living alone" mean that there are no children in the home, since that would be living with another human? Or are they referring only to adults? Are children not people after all?
How you managed to drag single parenting into this is a credit to your trollness. Well done.
49
@18 - "Married two parent households provide the best environment to raise children into functional contributing adults."
Actually, there is significant evidence that two-adult-only households lead to more neuroses in children. The strongest, most functional & resilient children are raised in multiple (3 or greater) adult living situations. Kind of like the real traditional family: extended families living in the same compound or neighborhood.
The nuclear family is an aberration in human history, and has existed for a very short amount of time.
Actually, there is significant evidence that two-adult-only households lead to more neuroses in children. The strongest, most functional & resilient children are raised in multiple (3 or greater) adult living situations. Kind of like the real traditional family: extended families living in the same compound or neighborhood.
The nuclear family is an aberration in human history, and has existed for a very short amount of time.
50
Seems like such a waste. If all the single folks just got a roommate, we could be using 84 million fewer refrigerators in the US. Plus, there could be more cuddling and less energy wasted on heat.
51
I really hate abuse of statistics. There is a correlation between children raised outside of wedlock and certain types of problems. However, there are an enormous number of confounding factors. Historically, being raised out of wedlock meant an accidental pregnancy. Being raised out of wedlock meant fewer financial resources and more social scorn. And so forth.
Which means that if more people are voluntarily choosing not to be married, they do not fit the historic model of raising children out of wedlock. Which means that you should not assume that a person who chooses to get pregnant outside of wedlock has any of the same risks as someone who did not. The fact that the model is changing so drastically is the key fact you need to know that we cannot use previous statistics as a guide to current outcomes. If such parents would have been viewed as neurotic in the past, then their children would be disadvantaged by that. If now they are viewed as more normal, then their children are less likely to be disadvantaged.
Correlations are dangerous things.
It's also a classic thing to do to deliberately take a class of people and heap a bunch of disadvantages on them socially and then use the statistics that show that they do more poorly as justification for looking down on them. But we tend to find that when we stop heaping those disadvantages on them and start treating them equally that the people in those classes tend to start doing a whole lot better. There is no particular reason that families that raise children outside of wedlock would not fit that model.
Which means that if more people are voluntarily choosing not to be married, they do not fit the historic model of raising children out of wedlock. Which means that you should not assume that a person who chooses to get pregnant outside of wedlock has any of the same risks as someone who did not. The fact that the model is changing so drastically is the key fact you need to know that we cannot use previous statistics as a guide to current outcomes. If such parents would have been viewed as neurotic in the past, then their children would be disadvantaged by that. If now they are viewed as more normal, then their children are less likely to be disadvantaged.
Correlations are dangerous things.
It's also a classic thing to do to deliberately take a class of people and heap a bunch of disadvantages on them socially and then use the statistics that show that they do more poorly as justification for looking down on them. But we tend to find that when we stop heaping those disadvantages on them and start treating them equally that the people in those classes tend to start doing a whole lot better. There is no particular reason that families that raise children outside of wedlock would not fit that model.
52
49
Brilliant point.
Polygamy is THE marriage format of the human race.
Why Danny is so bigoted against a 100% Normal&Natural Institution™ baffles.
Brilliant point.
Polygamy is THE marriage format of the human race.
Why Danny is so bigoted against a 100% Normal&Natural Institution™ baffles.
54
51
households not bound together by marriage are more likely to break up and provide less stable environments for children.
admittedly, marriage is not what it used to be and the advantage is not as great as it used to be but that just reasserts the basic premise that Marriage is a institution under great duress.
households not bound together by marriage are more likely to break up and provide less stable environments for children.
admittedly, marriage is not what it used to be and the advantage is not as great as it used to be but that just reasserts the basic premise that Marriage is a institution under great duress.
55
48
Thank You for your question.
There are two trends mentioned in the article- fewer adults married and more people living alone.
It is not so much 'single' parenting as 'out-of-wedlock' parenting; which would include single parents (who are not discussed in this article, which, as you point out, highlights people living alone) but also includes cohabitating adults raising children.
The fact that the percentage of adults married has dropped from over 70% to 50% means a great many children are now in households without married caregivers.
And they often show up in Danny's "Every Child deserves...";
97% of which feature children in households with unmarried adults.
Thank You for your question.
There are two trends mentioned in the article- fewer adults married and more people living alone.
It is not so much 'single' parenting as 'out-of-wedlock' parenting; which would include single parents (who are not discussed in this article, which, as you point out, highlights people living alone) but also includes cohabitating adults raising children.
The fact that the percentage of adults married has dropped from over 70% to 50% means a great many children are now in households without married caregivers.
And they often show up in Danny's "Every Child deserves...";
97% of which feature children in households with unmarried adults.
56
41
46
Glad to see you finally realize that the increased acceptance of homosexual "marriage" has occurred in a society which also has increasing disdain for marriage.
46
Glad to see you finally realize that the increased acceptance of homosexual "marriage" has occurred in a society which also has increasing disdain for marriage.
58
43
Complex modern societies have not figured out how to handle diminishing populations. Pension systems are always ponzi schemes that depend on ever increasing numbers of young suckers piling into the bottom of the system to fund the (overgenerous) benefits for the already retired. Unless you plan to abandon the old in the woods for the wolves to eat you need a growing population to sustain your economy.
Complex modern societies have not figured out how to handle diminishing populations. Pension systems are always ponzi schemes that depend on ever increasing numbers of young suckers piling into the bottom of the system to fund the (overgenerous) benefits for the already retired. Unless you plan to abandon the old in the woods for the wolves to eat you need a growing population to sustain your economy.
60
43
OK.
one more time; try to follow along....
When homosexuals congregate in urban areas they give those areas higher percentages of people living singly since they are much less likely to be married.
Atlanta has a very high percentage of homosexuals, a fact we assume @17 was unaware of, and which we shared in @19.
If you look at the percentage of homosexuals living in urban areas it will track with urban areas with higher rates of single households.
We were wrong to say you are a tedious bitch.
You are tedious bitchood squared......
OK.
one more time; try to follow along....
When homosexuals congregate in urban areas they give those areas higher percentages of people living singly since they are much less likely to be married.
Atlanta has a very high percentage of homosexuals, a fact we assume @17 was unaware of, and which we shared in @19.
If you look at the percentage of homosexuals living in urban areas it will track with urban areas with higher rates of single households.
We were wrong to say you are a tedious bitch.
You are tedious bitchood squared......
61
@49: I second this. Conservatives who think that the 50s image of marriage and family was some stable golden age do not know history. As well as the availability on contraceptive methods (not as good as today, of course) for long before 1959. There is scholarship that dates American promiscuity to after WWII, before the pill. And tracking it before the 19th century would involve a time machine.
62
@60 - But the question asked in @17 was why Atlanta had experienced a sudden surge. Gays have always gathered in urban centers, and Atlanta has already been one for some time. What's changed in that city?
Aside from that, you're still assuming facts not in evidence. Yes, homosexuals are less likely to be married (particularly when they can't marry in most states), and will tend to contribute to higher numbers of single people. And urban areas tend to attract larger gay communities than rural areas. But a statistical change of this magnitude suggests that a growing number of heterosexuals are remaining single, broadly speaking. In the narrower matter of Atlanta . . . well, I don't know. I'm happy to admit I have no answer to the question you failed to answer.
To be considered tedious bitchood squared by a cowardly, unregistered troll hardly passes as insult.
Aside from that, you're still assuming facts not in evidence. Yes, homosexuals are less likely to be married (particularly when they can't marry in most states), and will tend to contribute to higher numbers of single people. And urban areas tend to attract larger gay communities than rural areas. But a statistical change of this magnitude suggests that a growing number of heterosexuals are remaining single, broadly speaking. In the narrower matter of Atlanta . . . well, I don't know. I'm happy to admit I have no answer to the question you failed to answer.
To be considered tedious bitchood squared by a cowardly, unregistered troll hardly passes as insult.
63
62
Yes.
A growing number of heterosexuals are remaining single.
That was the whole point of the article.
But what puts cities at the top of the 'single household' list is a large percentage of homosexuals.
Are you being dense on purpose?
We can't tell.
.
Rank of American cities by the highest percentage of homosexuals within city limits:
1 San Francisco
2 Seattle
3 Atlanta
4 Minneapolis
5 Boston
9 Washington
.
Rank of American cities by the highest percentage of people living alone:
1 Washington
2 Atlanta
3 Minneapolis
4 Seattle
5 San Francisco etc
8 Boston
do you see a pattern?
we are unaware up a sudden jump in Atlanta's ranking.
perhaps @17 could elaborate.
Yes.
A growing number of heterosexuals are remaining single.
That was the whole point of the article.
But what puts cities at the top of the 'single household' list is a large percentage of homosexuals.
Are you being dense on purpose?
We can't tell.
.
Rank of American cities by the highest percentage of homosexuals within city limits:
1 San Francisco
2 Seattle
3 Atlanta
4 Minneapolis
5 Boston
9 Washington
.
Rank of American cities by the highest percentage of people living alone:
1 Washington
2 Atlanta
3 Minneapolis
4 Seattle
5 San Francisco etc
8 Boston
do you see a pattern?
we are unaware up a sudden jump in Atlanta's ranking.
perhaps @17 could elaborate.
64
I love how the Conservatives want to blame this on the gays.
I can't tell you the number of successful, attractive women I know who choose to live alone in condos, houses, apts etc. Some guy needs to be *really* amazing for them to be willing to give up all that freedom. They're not willing to cook, clean up after, and wash the nasty drawers of some dude unless he's really, really worth it. And guess what? There's not exactly a ton of men out there these days who are really, really worth it. Women aren't desperate for a financial lifeboat anymore and the stigma of singlehood is gone so there's no stopping them. Marriage & kids are now a lifestyle choice for those that find that sort of lifestyle appealing. Get used to the new situation, Fundys, it ain't going away any time soon.
@63
And how do you explain Denver, Cleveland, New Orleans, etc?
Idiot.
I can't tell you the number of successful, attractive women I know who choose to live alone in condos, houses, apts etc. Some guy needs to be *really* amazing for them to be willing to give up all that freedom. They're not willing to cook, clean up after, and wash the nasty drawers of some dude unless he's really, really worth it. And guess what? There's not exactly a ton of men out there these days who are really, really worth it. Women aren't desperate for a financial lifeboat anymore and the stigma of singlehood is gone so there's no stopping them. Marriage & kids are now a lifestyle choice for those that find that sort of lifestyle appealing. Get used to the new situation, Fundys, it ain't going away any time soon.
@63
And how do you explain Denver, Cleveland, New Orleans, etc?
Idiot.
65
I think you hit an important nail on the head, 64. It's not about teh gheys. In fact, percentage-wise, more of my gay friends are married or in LTRs than my straight friends (writing from DC, in case you forgot).
As others have pointed out, this isn't a one-dimensional trend. It's not so much that people in these cities are OPPOSED to marriage, they just get married later than people in small-town America. Why? Many reasons. First, it takes a lot of education to make it in these cities. So, if you're not "starting out" until 25-30 because of pursuing higher education, it only makes sense that you won't get married until 32-40. You need some time to live your life, find a compatible partner, date, etc. If you start that path in high school, then it makes sense that you'll be married by 21-25. If you move from your hometown to your college town, then to your grad school town, and then to your career town, and maybe once more pursuing opportunity, and your compatible mates are doing the same thing, you're just not going to settle down that young, even though the elapsed time from "being an independent person" to "settling down" is similar. And while I DO see a lot of pre-marital cohabitation, it's the healthy kind, on a path to marriage, as a way to make sure that the other person is compatible in every way (better broken up than divorced, better childless than with children in the matrix), versus the home- and bed- and babydaddy-hopping I see from my less-successful friends who stayed in their hometowns. Add in the demographics of big cities (skewed younger), and it LOOKS like people are shunning marriage, when they're really just getting a later start and making sure it's right. If we instead looked at metropolitan statistical areas (many people move to the 'burbs when they get married) and set an age (like they do for college degrees, like % of people married by 35) AND factored into the divorce rates, we'd likely see that these cities foster healthy, stable relationships (like the troll's stat that the marriage rate fell but the number of married people increased substantially...so fewer people getting married among a young educated demographic mix, but FAR fewer of those married people getting divorced).
But another important part of that is what 64 says...women now have a choice. Fortunately, the results I have seen from this are men stepping up to be the man that a woman wants. Living independently is GOOD for men. They learn to wash their own nasty drawers and cook their own meals and keep their own home and maybe even decorate a little, and they can appreciate a woman who just resets the breaker or recaulks the window or jumps the car when it's necessary. And that's why marriages in these cities happen later but last longer. Neither men nor women "settle." Sure, there's still the inevitable give-and-take of relationships, but there's a much more honest conversation about what each brings to the table and how the labor will be divided. And that's nothing but good...for men, women, and, for most of them (most people still have kids of their own), their eventual kids. I love when my younger male friends ooh and ahh over my kitchen or washer/dryer...they've become domesticated...and when they go ga-ga for successful women...they've learned to value what each person brings to the table in a holistic way. Good stuff.
More...
As others have pointed out, this isn't a one-dimensional trend. It's not so much that people in these cities are OPPOSED to marriage, they just get married later than people in small-town America. Why? Many reasons. First, it takes a lot of education to make it in these cities. So, if you're not "starting out" until 25-30 because of pursuing higher education, it only makes sense that you won't get married until 32-40. You need some time to live your life, find a compatible partner, date, etc. If you start that path in high school, then it makes sense that you'll be married by 21-25. If you move from your hometown to your college town, then to your grad school town, and then to your career town, and maybe once more pursuing opportunity, and your compatible mates are doing the same thing, you're just not going to settle down that young, even though the elapsed time from "being an independent person" to "settling down" is similar. And while I DO see a lot of pre-marital cohabitation, it's the healthy kind, on a path to marriage, as a way to make sure that the other person is compatible in every way (better broken up than divorced, better childless than with children in the matrix), versus the home- and bed- and babydaddy-hopping I see from my less-successful friends who stayed in their hometowns. Add in the demographics of big cities (skewed younger), and it LOOKS like people are shunning marriage, when they're really just getting a later start and making sure it's right. If we instead looked at metropolitan statistical areas (many people move to the 'burbs when they get married) and set an age (like they do for college degrees, like % of people married by 35) AND factored into the divorce rates, we'd likely see that these cities foster healthy, stable relationships (like the troll's stat that the marriage rate fell but the number of married people increased substantially...so fewer people getting married among a young educated demographic mix, but FAR fewer of those married people getting divorced).
But another important part of that is what 64 says...women now have a choice. Fortunately, the results I have seen from this are men stepping up to be the man that a woman wants. Living independently is GOOD for men. They learn to wash their own nasty drawers and cook their own meals and keep their own home and maybe even decorate a little, and they can appreciate a woman who just resets the breaker or recaulks the window or jumps the car when it's necessary. And that's why marriages in these cities happen later but last longer. Neither men nor women "settle." Sure, there's still the inevitable give-and-take of relationships, but there's a much more honest conversation about what each brings to the table and how the labor will be divided. And that's nothing but good...for men, women, and, for most of them (most people still have kids of their own), their eventual kids. I love when my younger male friends ooh and ahh over my kitchen or washer/dryer...they've become domesticated...and when they go ga-ga for successful women...they've learned to value what each person brings to the table in a holistic way. Good stuff.
66
Good Evening Charles,
Yeah, I found that data interesting too.That is pretty high.especially vis-a-vis 1960.
Given that I am on my own as well that makes me in numbered company. I reckon there may be a myriad of reasons for this phenomenon. But, one comes to mind immediately, what % of adults did co-habitat (married etc.) PRIOR to living alone and what were their reasons for leaving that arrangement? Maybe, many were quite unhappy with it.
I have a saying "Better to be unhappily single than to be unhappily married". Not that I'm unhappy but possibly many are.
.
Yeah, I found that data interesting too.That is pretty high.especially vis-a-vis 1960.
Given that I am on my own as well that makes me in numbered company. I reckon there may be a myriad of reasons for this phenomenon. But, one comes to mind immediately, what % of adults did co-habitat (married etc.) PRIOR to living alone and what were their reasons for leaving that arrangement? Maybe, many were quite unhappy with it.
I have a saying "Better to be unhappily single than to be unhappily married". Not that I'm unhappy but possibly many are.
.
67
64
oh no....someone call the CDC
the tedious bitchiness is spreading!
you girls really must stop licking doorknobs and toilet seats.....
No one is "blaming" homosexuals.
Just pointing out a demographic fact.
Don't take it personally, chris.
Denver ranks 8th on the list of cities by homosexual percentage and tied with San Francisco at #5-7 on the list of singles. Wiki only lists the top ten, sorry, can't help you more.
oh no....someone call the CDC
the tedious bitchiness is spreading!
you girls really must stop licking doorknobs and toilet seats.....
No one is "blaming" homosexuals.
Just pointing out a demographic fact.
Don't take it personally, chris.
Denver ranks 8th on the list of cities by homosexual percentage and tied with San Francisco at #5-7 on the list of singles. Wiki only lists the top ten, sorry, can't help you more.
68
64
oh, and 'fundies' don't really have anything to get used to; they will still have children and grandchildren to care for them when they get old.
As for Homosexual Nation and those Gorgeous Gals who just can't be bothered with a man or kids; well lets just hope euthanasia becomes more accepted so your 'Golden' Years aren't too painful.
oh, and 'fundies' don't really have anything to get used to; they will still have children and grandchildren to care for them when they get old.
As for Homosexual Nation and those Gorgeous Gals who just can't be bothered with a man or kids; well lets just hope euthanasia becomes more accepted so your 'Golden' Years aren't too painful.
69
65
oh no....you've misread the Census figures the troll cited- the marriage rate fell AND the number of married people DECREASED substantially...(by a third)
Your hopeful/wishful conjecture not withstanding, the fact is that Americans value marriage and parenting much less than earlier generations and are much less willing to "man up" to the responsibilities of adulthood.
Mary Tyler Moore was a darling but a nation of Mary Tyler Moores is a demographic disaster.
oh no....you've misread the Census figures the troll cited- the marriage rate fell AND the number of married people DECREASED substantially...(by a third)
Your hopeful/wishful conjecture not withstanding, the fact is that Americans value marriage and parenting much less than earlier generations and are much less willing to "man up" to the responsibilities of adulthood.
Mary Tyler Moore was a darling but a nation of Mary Tyler Moores is a demographic disaster.
70
@63 - Conversing with me is a privilege I don't wish to extend to you much longer. @17's assertion was this:
What's being pointed out is that Atlanta's rank has jumped; to miss this required either actual or affected density, and not on my part. Whether the assertion is true or not, I cannot say (and frankly don't care; despite being happily married, I don't see any value shift one way or another if people are marrying less or breeding less). If avocado has any more time to waste on someone of your disposition and aptitude, I invite him/her to take this up with you.
That is nothing new or interesting about Seattle having a higher percentage of singles than Portland. It's been that way for years. What actually is interesting is that Atlanta is suddenly the second highest. It's been DC, Seattle, and SF for a long time -- when did Atlanta become number 2, and why?(emphasis mine)
What's being pointed out is that Atlanta's rank has jumped; to miss this required either actual or affected density, and not on my part. Whether the assertion is true or not, I cannot say (and frankly don't care; despite being happily married, I don't see any value shift one way or another if people are marrying less or breeding less). If avocado has any more time to waste on someone of your disposition and aptitude, I invite him/her to take this up with you.
71
@68
So people who don't make the same lifestyle choices as you do, you wish death upon. I bet you're a serious "Christian" too. Wow, what a huge bag of issues and dysfunction you are. Have fun being you! Best of luck, from all of us!
So people who don't make the same lifestyle choices as you do, you wish death upon. I bet you're a serious "Christian" too. Wow, what a huge bag of issues and dysfunction you are. Have fun being you! Best of luck, from all of us!
72
71
now, now- don't be all buttsore and bitchy....
we haven't expressed a personal preference, nor shall we.
we are merely noting that folks who choose not to reproduce miss out on a potential support system when they get old.
euthanasia is actually a pet project of the buttsex and babyslaughter crowd; who are we to deny them their kicks?
now, now- don't be all buttsore and bitchy....
we haven't expressed a personal preference, nor shall we.
we are merely noting that folks who choose not to reproduce miss out on a potential support system when they get old.
euthanasia is actually a pet project of the buttsex and babyslaughter crowd; who are we to deny them their kicks?
73
70
well thanks for coming back to let us know that you don't know and don't care.
conversing with the ignorant-apathetic truly IS a privilege;
butt, alas, one that we get all the time on slog....
well thanks for coming back to let us know that you don't know and don't care.
conversing with the ignorant-apathetic truly IS a privilege;
butt, alas, one that we get all the time on slog....
74
It's going to be funny when these Fundies get old and realize their kids and grandkids are actually leaving them to stew in their own crap bags, opting instead to live in lovely cities, making lovely lives for themselves, far FAR away from the fuckface bigots they are so blessed to be related to. Really, there's nothing better than a hateful old 'neck, except a hateful old 'neck who shits themselves and wants to come live with you.
75
74
totally.
They need to run off to the big city.
Where 20% of them will get AIDS.
cause It Gets Better.......
totally.
They need to run off to the big city.
Where 20% of them will get AIDS.
cause It Gets Better.......
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Revelation 1:9 by Goldy
-
The City of Portland, Oregon Should Run for Washington Lieutenant Governor by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS