zlacker

>>gmays+(OP)
> While many unmarried 40-year-olds are living with a romantic partner, most are not. In 2022, 22% of never-married adults ages 40 to 44 were cohabiting.

It seems that the institution of marriage is the issue and not human relationship?

>>raseng+95
I’m not entirely sure - it would be interesting to break down the cohort of the 78% of never-marrieds who live alone. Presumedly, they are single or not in a serious relationship, which might indicate that there’s a deeper societal and cultural problem than just marriage.

>>dpratt+h6
Yes there is ... It's pretty obvious to the younger generations, we are living in an age with the largest wealth inequality in the history of humanity.

Tie in the fact that the average salary can't support the 'traditional' lifestyle, and the desire for 'traditional' dating expectations. And now you have men checking out for one of many reasons, for example: not making enough with the right type of career.

And personally I see an unsustainable desire in women my age to travel. So instead of saving for the outcomes they might want (marriage and kide), an expectation that the man will provide the necessary support.

>>doctor+P8
In the history of humanity? That reads to me like you are not very familiar with history. We are probably living in the period of the least wealth inequality in all of human history.

The typical “poor” person living in the USA lives in the lap of luxury (in terms of clothing, food, shelter, etc) compared to a serf in medieval Europe, a peasant under the Assyrians, etc. I mean, how many poor people have running water, electricity, Air Conditioning, etc.? Can you imagine a poor person from 3,000 years ago seeing that and then hearing talk about wealth inequality? It would sound insane.

Cesar Augustus was worth $4.6 Trillion. That’s a pretty huge wealth disparity to a common person back then. What about Mansa Musa? His wealth was so vast that nobody even knows how to put a number to it. Do you think the common people under him were rich?