zlacker

> 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+(OP)
22% is a subset of the 25%, meaning there’s still roughly 20% of 40-44 that are not cohabitating and not married.

Significantly higher than the 6% decades ago. Which seems to indicate human relationships are indeed in decline (the institution of marriage Is likely also in decline, but it’s not the sole reason for the high percentage)

>>raseng+(OP)
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.

>>raseng+(OP)
You think one in five is a healthy ratio? That means four out of five don’t have someone around. That’s got to affect people as they get older and need occasional help with things, all kinds of things.

>>mc32+x1
Elderly care in the US is bound to skyrocket as people have less children and more elderly are alone.

>>cj+U
Without a deeper dive it's entirely possible that decades ago more people were living in sham marriages for the sake of appearence and fewer people today feel the need to do so.

>>cj+U
When you're on the hook for alimony when your ex-GF leaves a toothbrush at your home it makes some think twice.

>>dpratt+81
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+G3
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?

>>raseng+(OP)
> In 2022, 22% of never-married adults ages 40 to 44 were cohabiting

Are there number on how many of the cohabitants are raising children and/or have a mortgage together?

If they have one or both, but are not married, then the traditional family has just evolved without the need for marriage.

>>kevin_+N2
The economist in me knows that most of the downturn in marriages is due to financial reasons, but the decline in relationships overall makes it clear there’s more to the story.

I wish more research was done in this area, it’s obviously an important one. Dating apps and their consequences seem to be a disaster in the making (if it’s not already here).

>>irrati+R4
You know, I see this sort of inequality apologism in every one of these threads, but people sure seem pissed off at the system for some reason or other.

>>hotpot+Nc
I’m not saying there isn’t bad wealth inequality. I’m just saying that it is very far from the worst in all of human history.

>>irrati+y51
Given that there are still humans on Earth who live essentially as they would have thousands of years ago in hunter-gatherer or subsistence agricultural societies, you could also say that wealth inequality has only increased throughout human history and every day is worse than the one that has come before it.

>>hotpot+2z1
If we are going to consider every single person on earth at the same time, then the time of Mansa Musa would have to be the absolutely worse since he was wealthier than any person on Earth today. Heck, even if you combined every billionaire on earth today, Mansa Musa would still be wealthier than all of their combined fortunes by at least an order of magnitude.

>>irrati+6P1
Do you think inequality has any deleterious effects on society?

>>hotpot+GG2
Of course. The question here is not one of whether wealth inequality is bad, but if we are living in the period of the greatest wealth inequality in all of human history.

>>irrati+t33
Oh I'm aware, but it sure seems like trying to compare now to the Pharohs' time or whatever is more of a whataboutism than actually trying to address the issue. Though it is interesting to think that being considered a god amongst humans is perhaps an even greater inequality than material wealth. Still, I'd rather have air conditioning and regular bathing than whatever your historical despot of choice had to put up with.