In "The Vision of the Anointed," Thomas Sowell writes: "In a given year, the number of divorces may well be half as large as the number of marriages that year, but this is comparing apples to oranges. The marriages being counted are only those taking place within the given year, while the divorces that year are from marriages that that took place over a period of decades. To say that half of all marriages end in divorce, based on such statistics, would be like saying that half of the population died last year if deaths were half as large as births. Just as most people were neither born nor died last year, so most marriages did not begin or end last year." Is this right? I'm not sure why but I am having trouble with this point. If the total number of marriages was remaining relatively constant at least wouldn't it have to be true that if the divorce rate was half of the new marriage rate then half of all marriages must be ending in divorce.

Let us assume:
Current number of marriages: 1 million
New marriages per year: 10,000
Divorces per year: 5,000

Over the course of ten years, 100K new marriages have occurred, bringing the maximum number of marriages to 1.1 million. However, 50K divorces have happened, so the actual figure is 1.05 million. Only about four and a half percent of total marriages have actually ended in this case. The confusion stems from an assumption that the divorce rate is relatively constant over the years and decades, which it very much isn't.

If this tendence remains constant for the next 100 years, in 100 years half the people that gets married from now to then will be divorced (if not [hopefully] dead).

Does it really matter? We have come to this thanks to marriage lasting forever.

Not that kids who have both parents forever aren't able to be fucking sonovabiches and behave nasty.

Quote: Original post by owl
If this tendence remains constant for the next 100 years, in 100 years half the people that gets married from now to then will be divorced (if not [hopefully] dead).

Does it really matter? We have come to this thanks to marriage lasting forever.

Not that kids who have both parents forever aren't able to be fucking sonovabiches and behave nasty.

While this is true, a stable parental relationship does help bring up children that are more 'stable' in a sense. I've seen plenty of kids missing out on certain aspects in life because of divorces.

I personally believe it's linked to the fact that people take less care of their relationship. Modern society revolves more around 'me' than around an 'us', and more people believe that their relationship can be replaced with a better one of their isn't going well. Instead of actually investing into their relationship, working out their problems, they end the relation and go on to the next.

Toolmaker

Quote: Original post by Toolmaker
Instead of actually investing into their relationship, working out their problems, they end the relation and go on to the next.

Without passing any judgement, didn't yours implode recently? Or have I mixed you up with someone else?

Quote: Original post by Toolmaker
Modern society revolves more around 'me' than around an 'us', and more people believe that their relationship can be replaced with a better one of their isn't going well. Instead of actually investing into their relationship, working out their problems, they end the relation and go on to the next.

Well, IMO, this is a consecuence of having during thousands of years people pushed into doing things they don't really wanna do. Now they (specially women) can say NO! and rest asure they will say NO.

I'd rather go to hell making mistakes by myself than being kicked in my balls straight to heaven. (Even when that's probably the only way I can get my ass in heaven).

And I drink to that!

*raises beer*

PS: What raises good kids is good example and caring. Not institutional stability.

PS2: I'd bet that half of the couples who moves togheter each year do not get married. So good news! They can't get divorced!

And I drink to that!

*raises beer*

In other news, drunk posting is on the rise in our community. It's up 50% since last holiday.

You can find actual data sets here: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths. If you don't want to fuss with pdf files, you can find stats here too: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for July 2008. Unfortunately, the national totals at that page for marriage and divorce omit several states, including California where the stereotype suggests that divorce is more common. Here's another source: Marriage and Divorce

* Number of marriages: 2,230,000
* Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
* Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)

That's for 2005. The projected total population for January 1, 2005 was 295,160,302 (or 295 million) (source). The 2,230,000 figure is for marriages in 2005, not total marriages in tact in 2005.

I bet that first-time marriages have a far lower chance of failure.

Quote: Original post by anothrguitarist
In other news, drunk posting is on the rise in our community. It's up 50% since last holiday.

indeed, and I contribute.

owl: I will clink glasses with thou!