Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 209 posts

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#191

Post by inglor_cz »

anal_reactor wrote: post #167
siffl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps even more interesting in the near-future is the prospect of creating sperm, through technological means, from female cells. The research to do this seems to be close to succeeding - see e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11601-bone-stem-cells... When researchers perfect this technique for humans, which they almost certainly will eventually, there will be no need for men at all. Women will be able to…

It's amazing that we'd rather consider eugenics than change our social norms

Not the OP, but biology may be more amenable to change than social norms.

There is an interesting old article on Slate Star Codex touching this:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biolo...

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#192

Post by ben_w »

missedthecue wrote: post #168
pfdietz wrote: post #21

Patrick Boyle has looked at causes of decline in the total fertility rate around the world and concluded reduction in the formation of couples (married or not) is a major cause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ispyUPqqL1c

In 12,000+ years of anthropological record, there are zero advanced civilizations (defined as having written language, urban centers, and some form of state apparatus) that didn't have the institution of marriage. Zero. I'm worried a lot about the declining rates of marriage and family formation. I don't see a lot of good that can come from it.

The institutions, plural, of marriage varied wildly over that time.

Dowries vs. free, monogamy vs. polygamy, common law marriage vs. ceremony, wives being property vs. independent people, self-determined vs. marriages arranged by parents, and this biblical passage:

"Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him" (NIV, Matt 22:24)

And it's not like no country has implemented mandatory childcare payments outside wedlock.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#193

Post by ben_w »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #141
siffl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps even more interesting in the near-future is the prospect of creating sperm, through technological means, from female cells. The research to do this seems to be close to succeeding - see e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11601-bone-stem-cells... When researchers perfect this technique for humans, which they almost certainly will eventually, there will be no need for men at all. Women will be able to…

> so in the much longer term we will see the eradication of the Y chromosome - and all the problems that arise from it. Jeez what did my chromies ever do to you?

Colour blindness, famously. I'd have to google for any other Y-specific issues, don't know them off the top of my head.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#195

Post by graemep »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #135
graemep wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not really understand that. Why would people have to start again from zero? What sort of "forced loss of agency" happens? Are there laws allowing people to stop their spouse from running an existing business?

It comes from an ancient legal regime called “community property” inherited from the Spanish in the southwestern US. The details of what is within legal scope and how it is handled varies significantly with jurisdiction. In most cases the loss of ownership independence also comes with a loss of management independence — your spouse can get involved and has veto power. Assets that are out of scope can bleed into scope…

Thanks for the explanation. I have heard of the concept of community property, but did not know where it came from historically. I also did not realise it had this effect - which makes sense now you explain it.

I do not think this is the explains of the decline in marriage though. AFAIK marriage has declined across the west - other US states, and certainly in many European countries.

People marry expecting to cooperate so I find it hard to believe this is a common reason not to marry on any case. The idea behind community of property must have been that the expectation of a marriage is that it will endure for life and the spouses are committed to each others' best interests. That is how it is supposed to work!

I think (and everything points to it being the cause here in the UK) is that without the social pressure to marry in order to co-habit people think of marriage as just a ceremony (on which they spend ridiculous amounts) and a piece of paper. They do not realise the legal benefits of marriage. In fact, many people assume that if they co-habit long term and have kids the law must be fair enough to give them reasonable rights, and some even think we have common law marriage here. It leads to distressing results when relationships break down, or a partner dies (especially without a will, or when a will is contested).

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#196

Post by FeloniousHam »

fwip wrote: post #68
xingped wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s stupid because the combination of singles mixers, tinder, and community events make it very easy to find a partner Tell me you haven't tried to date in a decade without telling me. Dating is more in the ditches than it has ever been.

I feel like most people would tell you that it's harder to date than it used to be, because most people are older than they used to be. That is, you're generally "less attractive" (in a median sort of way), as well as having stronger opinions about who/what you like. So your standards have come up, and your general desirability has gone down - so of course dating is going to feel more like a slog than when there were…

Data point of one: I'm older, and my experience with the apps was more than mostly positive. I hadn't dated in years, and with the exception of a couple clunkers, all my dates were fun and friendly. In every match, there was a lot of texting, and I put in a lot of effort.

Nobody was a swimsuit model, but I'm not either. I might be I've crossed the threshold where looks are less important than personality (looks are still important!).

Everyone I dated mentioned that their experience with the apps mostly sucked though.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#197

Post by ethbr1 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #188
ethbr1 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If owners were concerned, why wasn't there a prenupt? Do you have details on what you're talking about? Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes.

> Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes. Really? That’s what you’ve got? I’ve seen examples of this in Silicon Valley going back to the 1990s. A prenup is not reliable and loads of people don’t have one in any case. Unlike not getting married, there is significant social pressure against prenups. If you actually care the path of least resistance is to not get married. It is quite difficult to ge…

I meant you sound like rants on talk radio and TikTok.

If you cited more examples and laws, and relied less on drawn out appeals to emotion, I'd be more inclined to take what you're saying seriously.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#198

Post by lostmsu »

ultrasaurus wrote: post #123
toshinoriyagi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this all solved by just filing separately, not jointly?

There are places in the tax code where Single != Married Filing Separately. One pertinent example is that Washington State's capital gains tax applies after $270k per single person, per married couple filing jointly OR split in half for married filing separately. Which could be a theoretical $18.9k/year difference in taxes.

Yeah, that particular deduction reeks of some big brain energy. My family is going to be outta here by the end of the year, hopefully.

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#199

Post by pfdietz »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #177
pfdietz wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want the human population to asymptotically go to zero.

That assumes our behaviors don’t shift in response to our environment though. The main issue with birthrates is the very real incoming demographic collapse, not a complete population collapse.

"We shouldn't consider your solution because there may be other solutions."

Re: Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

#200

Post by pfdietz »

justonenote wrote: post #176
pfdietz wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mandate would be only one way to reach that state, and I don't think it would be a good way. Better would be a situation where female children become desired over male children, for example because they have better career prospects. In a female dominated society, discrimination against men could be a thing. Today, already, female students on average outperform male students in school and university.

my comment was tounge-in-cheek, pointing out that its essentially eugenics which is a controversial topic. although apparently less so when its applied to "Y chromosome holders" as you can see in a sibling reply where this particular group of people are deemed problematic and something that should be got rid of.

In a mostly-female world where women reproduce by artificial insemination I could see the sperm being marketed with focus on the qualities of the source. This is positive eugenics, albeit being driven by individual decisions, and could include genetic screening. Indeed, selection by women of desirable mates is already a kind of eugenics.
Post reply on HN