111–120 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the discounting of other aspects is my mental block. I understand that everyone has different desires, but it is hard for me to, personally, empathize with. Hence the mind boggling.
It was for me as well, but the more I’ve worked in tech, the more men I’ve met that simply aren’t capable of a relationship.
> As marriage becomes less popular among younger generations, Seattle men have hit a milestone of singledom: For the first time, half of the men living in the city have never been married. How can this logical fallacy pass through editorialising? As marriage becomes less popular, for the same number of couples, you will have fewer marriages but not more singles.
Can you explain the fallacy in more detail? It doesn't seem like a leap that if marriage is less popular, a larger percentage of the population is single.
> As marriage becomes less popular among younger generations, Seattle men have hit a milestone of singledom: For the first time, half of the men living in the city have never been married. How can this logical fallacy pass through editorialising? As marriage becomes less popular, for the same number of couples, you will have fewer marriages but not more singles.
"Single" for the purposes of this just means "not married". They don't care if the man has a girlfriend, situationship or polycule. If a person isn't married, they're single for the sake of taxes, census data, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing to be mindful of is that this limits your ability to help your partner as you age. State intervention can play both ways.
Just get someone a Power Of Attorney, while the spouse gets a few more rights the POA is literally acting as You.
I saw medical proxy mentioned above. I ran into those routinely but they were always supplied by the service provider. When they showed up it was good news; it meant I would have full discretion with that provider.
Seattle, meaning the city, right? When people get married and think about settling down and maybe having kids, they usually leave high cost of living cities. They want stability, something they can own or rent long term, and usually more space, especially if kids are coming. Sometimes they move to the suburbs, sometimes across the country. The only people who stay tend to be rich people who can actually afford to get…
Of course, this pattern of human settlement is silly. Cities used to be hospitable to families, often with multiple generations living in them. Instead of needing a daycare and lots of miles in a car, grandparents and relatives were nearby to help with young children. On the other hand, forcing people outside of the city to afford a family means more GDP from building roads, selling tyres, replacing cars, petrol sale…
Cities tend to be vulnerable to this effect, which ruins them for long term family and wealth building (which are closely related things).
Cars are only incidentally about transportation. A car is a machine that offers leverage in property markets. That’s its primary function. They do move you around but if I could get around without one I’d prefer it that way.
The only antidote to this in cities is very liberal zoning and construction policy, and that’s hard to maintain because city residents love seeing their property values rise. Cities tend to become real estate cartels of property owners.
It’s easier to get another twenty miles of roads and infrastructure built in the exurbs than to fight political trench warfare against NIMBY urbanites. If you want to blame something for car dependence and sprawl, blame zoning and city planners not cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a comparison, full time daycare in Sweden is $100/month for everyone. I think this is one important reason that marriage is not as common, since the society is aligned towards that is should be possible to manage on your own if you absolutely need to. I can't find a proper number but anecdotally I think maybe 50% of first time parents are married in Sweden. And yes obviously this is paid by higher taxes, but seen…
The birth rate in Sweden is low and falling. Whatever they're doing to keep demography sane doesn't seem to be working. Like most developed Western countries, their current approach relies more on high levels of immigration. Essentially they have outsourced the hassle and expense of having children. https://population-europe.eu/research/policy-insights/why-ar...
The issue is: without hope for the future there's not much the State can do to push people into having kids. We live in an age of hopelessness, I don't have my parents optimism from the 80s, I'm starting to approach 40 and every 5 years something happen to chip away on the little hope I still have.
The incel problem is now an epidemic, I feel very sorry for the young men of late millennial era and Gen Z. From what I have seen dating for these generations has become incredibly difficult. When I was a young man (I am the last of Gen X) relationships were never “easy” but dating was. There are young men out there in their 20s who are still virgins, I had a son at 18.
In contrast, dating queer folk has been a joy. They accept me for who I am.
I live in the metro region of Seattle. I'm not sure what Third Space / Place would be viable to find a life partner. The region is relatively sparse and spread out due to bodies of water, hilly topology. By car everything still seems far and the road network (as always for anywhere) strained to the limits of what people are barely willing to tolerate for commutes. Transit infrastructure is mostly commuter busses for…
Anecdotally, among the people I know in Seattle, many people who have happily been in the same relationship for decades are not married. People are not avoiding long-term relationships, they are avoiding the baggage and fairly rigid assumptions that comes with state intervention in their relationships. There is zero social pressure to be “officially” married so people have no reason to do it for the sake of social co…
What is US law on this and what are the "rigid assumptions" people find troublesome. In the UK the main effect of marriage is that it protects the lower earning partner if the relationship breaks down - most often (even now!) this is a woman who gives up work/takes a break from work to bring up kids. I come across a good many single mothers (mostly online because of an FB group I admin) who would have been MUCH bette…
A major motivating factor is that marriage can create myriad ruinous financial entanglements and eliminate most possibilities for recourse. Especially in affluent places like Seattle, people are often entering these relationships with a mature financial and business life. The loss of independence under law, both technically and in practice, in regard to these affairs in marriage has produced countless examples of bad outcomes for people, often forcing them to start over from zero in their 30s or 40s. It doesn’t matter if you divorce later, the damage is already done. By not getting married, they retain independence in these matters recognized by law which shields them from the downside scenarios.
These cases are mostly about retaining the ability to continue to run their businesses, investments, etc as they wish both in marriage and after. States in the western US are notoriously much less accommodating of protecting the interests of individuals in marriage than in some other parts of the country (purportedly due to the strong influence of Spanish legal customs in that region of North America). The forced loss of agency is not compatible with many requirements of competently living a modern life.
I probably know more women who were ruined by this in marriage than men. It has nothing to do with staying home or quitting a career to raise kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s unfortunate. And it’s a uniquely American mindset. Long-term relationships in Europe for example do not require marriage in the same way that Americans do. People get married in the states because of the law, people get married in other countries because they just want to get married for emotional or spiritual reasons.
I cannot think of anyone here in the United States who got married for legal benefits, other than some couples working on citizenship issues for one partner without citizenship. I think your Americans-vs-Europeans argument is greatly exaggerated if not outright false.
Also, health insurance. Another thing Americans have yet to learn from Europe. In the states, sometimes you have to get married just to get health insurance. It’s kind of ridiculous.