> Nobody is referring to alignment vis-a-vis NATO and the USSR. You actually said you were were from a third world country in an earlier comment, though you de

> Nobody is referring to alignment vis-a-vis NATO and the USSR. You actually said you were were from a third world country in an earlier comment, though you deleted that bit soon thereafter. Regardless, the point you still seem to be avoiding is that the US does much better economically than many other countries (whatever you want to call them), so there seems to be no empirical support for the idea that the cultures of those other countries are superior economically to the US culture, or that the current US culture will somehow result in a low standard of living. > We immigrated to the America of Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The country is still riding the inertia of that. I understand that you don't approve of the social changes that started in the 1960s, but it's now more than 50 years since the 1960s, so where is the economic doom, the low standard of living, that you suppose is caused by these social changes? When exactly do you predict that to happen? It appears to me that "still riding the inertia" is a convenient way of shrugging off the lack of empirical support for your belief. I see that you've now dropped your discussion of Appalachia, which is probably for the best, because the equation of that with 1960s social changes has always seemed totally bizarre and nonsensical to me. > Yes, but it's mainly a collectivist form of economic progressivism. So you claim. I guess it's necessary for you to spin it that way to support your other beliefs. > As we saw with 2012-2016 shifts, when cultural issues predominate, the alignment runs in the other direction. I'm not sure what you mean by "shifts" or "alignment". I'd have to guess you're referring to elections, which are often decided by razor thin margins, then wrongly interpreted as significant cultural shifts. > Except the women who have the most potential for independence have the highest marriage rates. That's rather easy to explain: those at the top have the best selection of potential mates! Moreover, those at the top are much less likely to experience the kind of financial crises that can put a great strain on a marriage. The wealthy always had financial independence. That's why nothing much has changed at the top. Now non-wealthy women have a lot more financial independence too. There's been no cultural rejection of the institution of marriage. After all, as another commenter here astutely noted, there wouldn't have been such a massive battle over gay marriage if we didn't care about marriage. The point of divorce is to get out of a bad marriage, which is much more possible now than before. Also, people have more freedom now to delay marriage until they're ready for it, when they feel the timing is good. Some people prefer singlehood, even later in life, but they're the minority. > do something that's good for them--getting and staying married. I disagree that this is necessarily good for them. I don't want to recite my personal life on HN, but let's just say that I wish my parents had divorced a lot sooner than they did. And now they're much happier divorced than they were married, and I'm also happier as a result. If anything, the problem is that people get married too easily, and too young.