EPTDivorce rates are based on socioeconomic status. While divorce rates among the poor have skyrocketed, divorce rates among the relatively affluent (specifically, those with a college degree) have remained quite steady over the past couple generations.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2420
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
Divorce rates are based on socioeconomic status. While divorce rates among the poor have skyrocketed, divorce rates among the relatively affluent (specifically, those with a college degree) have remained quite steady over the past couple generations. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 18 2015 08:38 IgnE wrote: No one who supports Sanders is so deluded as to think taxes won't need to be raised. im seeing some MMT people on sander's campaign staff. those are the deluded dudes who don't think tax needs be raised | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44359 Posts
On October 18 2015 10:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: Divorce rates are based on socioeconomic status. While divorce rates among the poor have skyrocketed, divorce rates among the relatively affluent (specifically, those with a college degree) have remained quite steady over the past couple generations. Hm why is that the case? I wouldn't have thought that unfaithfulness or unhappiness in a relationship would have increased in poor couples recently for any particular reason. Why would they start increasing? | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
On October 18 2015 11:05 oneofthem wrote: some more jim webb propaganda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6vEWeGJU54 I really respect Webb on some stuff. People have given him a rough shake because he didn't do well in the debate. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy who knows his stuff. This is coming from a Bernie supporter | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On October 18 2015 08:38 IgnE wrote: No one who supports Sanders is so deluded as to think taxes won't need to be raised. There is a lot of money in wall street my friend  More than you can imagine... | ||
KwarK
United States42716 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 18 2015 12:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Hm why is that the case? I wouldn't have thought that unfaithfulness or unhappiness in a relationship would have increased in poor couples recently for any particular reason. Why would they start increasing? Because the number one problem between married couples is money not unfaithfulness? | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
It probably more related to earlier age of marriage / shorter dating time, education, work condition, and just instability in general for lower income population that drives up divorce rate, even though it potentially make the situation worse. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44359 Posts
On October 18 2015 14:37 IgnE wrote: Because the number one problem between married couples is money not unfaithfulness? That doesn't explain why divorce rates would be increasing though, which is what I'm curious about. If divorce is mostly about money (and it may very well be the case), then we'd see consistently high divorce rates among the poor... and again, there'd be no reason as to why all of a sudden it's increasing more than usual. What changed? What new factor has been introduced? Unless a ton of rich people somehow lost a ton of money over the past few years, but I don't think there's evidence of that. There's a difference between saying "poor couples are more likely to get divorced" and "divorce rates among the poor have skyrocketed"... Stratos said the latter. I'm curious why there is an increase. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 18 2015 12:34 IgnE wrote: Who is that? the MMT people? MMT while largely true is also the kind of truth the political process cannot handle. and has to be coupled with government enterprises that can effectively absorb the spending | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 18 2015 15:33 ragz_gt wrote: The money angle seems counter intuitive as single cost more than couple per capita. Kids are obviously expensive but divorcing is not gonna resolve that issue. It probably more related to earlier age of marriage / shorter dating time, education, work condition, and just instability in general for lower income population that drives up divorce rate, even though it potentially make the situation worse. There is a lot of evidence garnered through relationship/marriage studies that money is the #1 thing that causes problems in a relationship. That doesn't explain why divorce rates would be increasing though, which is what I'm curious about. If divorce is mostly about money (and it may very well be the case), then we'd see consistently high divorce rates among the poor... and again, there'd be no reason as to why all of a sudden it's increasing more than usual. What changed? What new factor has been introduced? Unless a ton of rich people somehow lost a ton of money over the past few years, but I don't think there's evidence of that. There's a difference between saying "poor couples are more likely to get divorced" and "divorce rates among the poor have skyrocketed"... Stratos said the latter. I'm curious why there is an increase. I say that in relation to the general discussion about divorce. People like to talk about how 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is tied to the fact that divorce rates have risen a lot over the past generation or two, and they like to mention this as some kind of indictment of marriage. The thing that people don't realize is that those that are educated and relatively affluent haven't had their divorce rates rise much (if at all). That rise in divorce rates has affected the less well-off a lot more than the affluent. I'm trying to find the NPR story where I heard this from, but it's taking me a bit. This also doesn't just mean that divorce is purely due to money. Those that have a lower SES also tend to marry earlier, so there are a lot of factors that play into this dynamic. And saying that money is the #1 problem in relationships (this is a pretty widespread conclusion among academics) doesn't mean that people always divorce over money. People divorce over all kind of things, but having a certain amount of money is pretty important to an individual's happiness, and this would logically extend to their relationship. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28672 Posts
On October 16 2015 04:41 Gorsameth wrote: Sometimes you need to burn down the forest so that new trees can grow. I know I'm a couple days late but I mean that analogy works reasonably well for a forest. It's hardly a viable option for 'the world'. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On October 18 2015 13:44 KwarK wrote: So the Hillary email inquiry has forced a bunch of old diplomatic emails to be declassified including one, from April 2002, in which Blair commits to the Iraq invasion. This was 11 months before Britain officially decided to invade Iraq and contradict his claims made through those 11 months that compliance with UN resolutions would avert war. Holy balls... How does this get completely ignored? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On October 19 2015 03:10 DickMcFanny wrote: Holy balls... How does this get completely ignored? Hans-Dietrich Genscher (ex foreign-minister / statesman) wrote in his biography a few years ago that eight to nine months before the war most people in closer diplomatic circles already knew that the US was going to war no matter what and that everybody should prepare accordingly and that there would be no way out. In retrospective there never was a chance that it wasn't going to happen. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On October 19 2015 03:23 Nyxisto wrote: Hans-Dietrich Genscher (ex foreign-minister / statesman) wrote in his biography a few years ago that eight to nine months before the war most people in closer diplomatic circles already knew that the US was going to war no matter what and that everybody should prepare accordingly and that there would be no way out. In retrospective there never was a chance that it wasn't going to happen. Which has been largely known and accepted outside of the American Republican bubble for a while now. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 18 2015 23:28 oneofthem wrote: the MMT people? https://youtu.be/d57M6ATPZIE?t=2m45s MMT while largely true is also the kind of truth the political process cannot handle. and has to be coupled with government enterprises that can effectively absorb the spending Stephanie Kelton works on Bernie's campaign? | ||
| ||
