4 ms·

Interesting stuff, it's clear from this economics perspective that sexual behavior is tightly coupled to risks and societal influence. As birth control became m

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. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_...

discodave 12y ago
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.
- chadzawistowski 12y ago
  If you're going to name figures I think you ought to cite sources rather than just guessing.
  - innguest 12y ago
    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.
    - refurb 12y ago
      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".
- unethical_ban 12y ago
  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.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  > I would say that women are about 70-80% as financially independent as men, due to the gender pay gap. That pay gap is for all women, not unmarried women. Young unmarried women living in cities generally make more money than men.
- seany 12y ago
  The gender pay gap is a myth. Even major publications refute it http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-tha... http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023035327045794837...
  - nl 12y ago
    That's not what it says at all. Pulling quotes from the Forbes article: 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.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > 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.
      - nl 12y ago
- brc 12y ago
  Unfortunately, for many millions of women, even in western countries, this is still the case - treated as property.
throwawayaway 12y ago
> ever increasing divorce rates https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=divorce+rate+over+time&tbm=isch https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=divorce+rate+over+time... not sure your premise is true.
- irishcoffee 12y ago
  As a response, marriage rates over time: https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage+rates+over+time&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=sG0HVaL5BqrnsATl5oKoDQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=979 https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage+rates+over+time&sou...
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    the demonstrated decreasing marriage rate does not support the premise that divorce rates are increasing. is your response relevant in some other way?
    - irishcoffee 12y ago
      Divorce rates would tend to decrease if marriage rates decrease. Can't divorce if you aren't married.
      - nl 12y ago
        Well.. 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.
        chkuendig 12y ago
        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-i... http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marriage-isnt-dead-yet/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marriage-isnt-dead-yet/ 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)
Dewie 12y 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]). 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.
trhway 12y ago
>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%).
- draugadrotten 12y ago
  >just look at Sweden. 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. Source: Gähler, Life after divorce: economic, social and psychological well-being among Swedish adults and children following family dissolution https://scholar.google.se/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=sv&user=Gv2Kx9oAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Gv2Kx9oAAAAJ:u-x6o8ySG0sC https://scholar.google.se/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl...
swsieber 12y ago
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.
zxcvvcxz 12y ago
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. Here's something interesting: bachelorhood is at an all-time high: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachel... 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.

discodave 12y ago

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.

chadzawistowski 12y ago
If you're going to name figures I think you ought to cite sources rather than just guessing.
- innguest 12y ago
  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.
  - refurb 12y ago
    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".
unethical_ban 12y ago
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.
Alex3917 12y ago
> I would say that women are about 70-80% as financially independent as men, due to the gender pay gap. That pay gap is for all women, not unmarried women. Young unmarried women living in cities generally make more money than men.
seany 12y ago
The gender pay gap is a myth. Even major publications refute it http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-tha... http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023035327045794837...
- nl 12y ago
  That's not what it says at all. Pulling quotes from the Forbes article: 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.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > 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.
    - nl 12y ago
brc 12y ago
Unfortunately, for many millions of women, even in western countries, this is still the case - treated as property.

throwawayaway 12y ago

> ever increasing divorce rates https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=divorce+rate+over+time&tbm=isch https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=divorce+rate+over+time... not sure your premise is true.

irishcoffee 12y ago
As a response, marriage rates over time: https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage+rates+over+time&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=sG0HVaL5BqrnsATl5oKoDQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=979 https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage+rates+over+time&sou...
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  the demonstrated decreasing marriage rate does not support the premise that divorce rates are increasing. is your response relevant in some other way?
  - irishcoffee 12y ago
    Divorce rates would tend to decrease if marriage rates decrease. Can't divorce if you aren't married.
    - nl 12y ago
      Well.. 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.
      - chkuendig 12y ago
        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-i... http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marriage-isnt-dead-yet/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marriage-isnt-dead-yet/ 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)

Dewie 12y 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]). 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.

trhway 12y ago

>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%).

draugadrotten 12y ago
>just look at Sweden. 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. Source: Gähler, Life after divorce: economic, social and psychological well-being among Swedish adults and children following family dissolution https://scholar.google.se/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=sv&user=Gv2Kx9oAAAAJ&citation_for_view=Gv2Kx9oAAAAJ:u-x6o8ySG0sC https://scholar.google.se/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl...

swsieber 12y ago

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.

zxcvvcxz 12y ago

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. Here's something interesting: bachelorhood is at an all-time high: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachel... 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.