3 ms·

Maybe you should perform even a rudimentary google search before dismissing others: Marriage is for rich people https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012

by lf275 9y ago

Maybe you should perform even a rudimentary google search before dismissing others: Marriage is for rich people https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriage-is-for-rich-people/?referer= https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriag... "A new report, by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of the Hamilton Project, looked at the decline in marriage rates over the last 50 years and found a strong connection to income. Dwindling marriage rates are concentrated among the poor — the very people whose living standards would be most improved by having a second household income." "Whatever the case, the concentration of marriage among the richest Americans is amplifying the increase in income inequality."

sedachv 9y ago
Yes, Peterson must have read that exact article because the wording he used was almost verbatim. The problem is that he is convinced that this is somehow a new phenomenon in the context of European society going back to Roman times, which is what his lecture was about. The study is about the United States going back to 1970. It is extremely ignorant of Peterson to make that generalization.