Well I'm just going to put it out there, I'm a single bloke in DC looking for a partner and to build a family in the next few years. 33M, lived on 3 continents, likes to travel & read, wrote a book, working on a screenplay. Not tied to DC (originally from the West Coast but open to NYC/CA/W. EU)
Quick tip - delete that bit about working on a screenplay! Any woman who's lived anywhere near Los Angeles knows that's a big red flag (and I'm only half kidding).
Re. "Lots of people on the internet seem to think their very high IQ social circle is an island protected from general trends, as though your A* in GSCE Geography protects you from spinsterhood": eh, I think you're wrong here? Income largely does insulate you from the decline in marriage. If you're in the top quartile of income (for both men and women), likelihood of being married has barely dropped: https://hamzabenazzi.github.io/JPM%20Marry%20for%20Money%20or%20Time.pdf
But probably rates of long term cohabitation have risen as marriage rates have fallen, which is a mitigating factor here. Marriage is quite unpopular among many of my friends, but they generally do want long-term relationships.
"Of the seventeen remaining, only two more will make it down the aisle. If I were single now, I would look at my friends and internalise the fact that there a lot of beautiful and interesting women who are going to end up single. And I would be trying my best to be more cunning, diligent, and beautiful than them."
I feel confused by this claim? As written I feel it could be taken to imply you believe that a large part of the reason for decline in marriage rates is increased competition due to greater female choice, where only 30% or so of men are worth dating, so increasing your odds of getting married is mostly about improving your odds in a zero sum game; my vibes based impression is that the average person is making fewer dice rolls, rather than the odds having gotten worse.
Yes I’d put this differently: if you are a woman who is still unmarried, make sure you leave the house lots and develop strong friendships with men. You need to actually want to marry a man.
Really sharp use of cohort data here. The frogboiling metaphor is apt, we've normalized something statistically unprecedented. What I find intresting is how this intersects with delayed adulthood more broadly like later home ownership, career changes in 30s etc. The "appendix for sociopaths" exercise is brutal but probably necessary, most people drastically overestimate their position in dating market relative to their actual peer group.
Brutal data presentation but necesary wake-up call. That 10% drop per decade cohort is stark. The calculator tool is clever for personalizing the odds. Curious if the "matching technology" breakdown is more about apps themselves or just changed social norms around commitment. Either way, treating it like a project with actual metrics makes sense given the stakes.
Assuming a 50% marriage rate seems very pessimistic. From 1940 to 1970, ever married falls from ~95% to ~75% (or about 0.83% per birth year). It seems unlikely to me that the percentage decline would increase to 1.25% per birth year from 1970 to 1990.
Click around on the OWID source. From the 1960 cohort to now, it’s fallen by 10% every 10 years. There’s no sign of the rate slowing. There has to be a step change increase for the 1990 cohort to be much higher
If you take the most recent data point, the 1990 data point is trailing 24.4 points behind 1970. If the overall marriage rate decreases by that much, that would put you at just above 50% for the 1990 cohort. *However*, that is assuming that the time distribution of marriage doesn't change; that is; that the 1990 cohort's marriage rates will level off at the same rate as the 1970 cohort. This seems unlikely. (For a start, between ages of 32 and 33, 2.1% of the 1970 cohort married; 4.5% of the 1990 cohort did.)
Even if you take our own 10% number (which I don't think is correct; I think it's more like ~6%) - 63.7% of the 1980 cohort had married by 43. It seems likely the ever married fraction will level off in the high 60s. (About 4% of the 1970s cohort married in their late 40s.) You'd then end up with the 1990 cohort around 60%, not around 50%.
Well I'm just going to put it out there, I'm a single bloke in DC looking for a partner and to build a family in the next few years. 33M, lived on 3 continents, likes to travel & read, wrote a book, working on a screenplay. Not tied to DC (originally from the West Coast but open to NYC/CA/W. EU)
Dear Joel, Good luck! I admire you for putting yourself out there. Hope you meet someone lovely soon.
Quick tip - delete that bit about working on a screenplay! Any woman who's lived anywhere near Los Angeles knows that's a big red flag (and I'm only half kidding).
Re. "Lots of people on the internet seem to think their very high IQ social circle is an island protected from general trends, as though your A* in GSCE Geography protects you from spinsterhood": eh, I think you're wrong here? Income largely does insulate you from the decline in marriage. If you're in the top quartile of income (for both men and women), likelihood of being married has barely dropped: https://hamzabenazzi.github.io/JPM%20Marry%20for%20Money%20or%20Time.pdf
In the interest of being cunning: can I buy you a coffee in exchange for the TL;DR of your series so I can get started ASAP on this quest?
Sure, are you in London?
Dm’d
But probably rates of long term cohabitation have risen as marriage rates have fallen, which is a mitigating factor here. Marriage is quite unpopular among many of my friends, but they generally do want long-term relationships.
"Of the seventeen remaining, only two more will make it down the aisle. If I were single now, I would look at my friends and internalise the fact that there a lot of beautiful and interesting women who are going to end up single. And I would be trying my best to be more cunning, diligent, and beautiful than them."
I feel confused by this claim? As written I feel it could be taken to imply you believe that a large part of the reason for decline in marriage rates is increased competition due to greater female choice, where only 30% or so of men are worth dating, so increasing your odds of getting married is mostly about improving your odds in a zero sum game; my vibes based impression is that the average person is making fewer dice rolls, rather than the odds having gotten worse.
Yes I’d put this differently: if you are a woman who is still unmarried, make sure you leave the house lots and develop strong friendships with men. You need to actually want to marry a man.
Really sharp use of cohort data here. The frogboiling metaphor is apt, we've normalized something statistically unprecedented. What I find intresting is how this intersects with delayed adulthood more broadly like later home ownership, career changes in 30s etc. The "appendix for sociopaths" exercise is brutal but probably necessary, most people drastically overestimate their position in dating market relative to their actual peer group.
Brutal data presentation but necesary wake-up call. That 10% drop per decade cohort is stark. The calculator tool is clever for personalizing the odds. Curious if the "matching technology" breakdown is more about apps themselves or just changed social norms around commitment. Either way, treating it like a project with actual metrics makes sense given the stakes.
Assuming a 50% marriage rate seems very pessimistic. From 1940 to 1970, ever married falls from ~95% to ~75% (or about 0.83% per birth year). It seems unlikely to me that the percentage decline would increase to 1.25% per birth year from 1970 to 1990.
Click around on the OWID source. From the 1960 cohort to now, it’s fallen by 10% every 10 years. There’s no sign of the rate slowing. There has to be a step change increase for the 1990 cohort to be much higher
I did. (By the way, your link is broken.)
If you take the most recent data point, the 1990 data point is trailing 24.4 points behind 1970. If the overall marriage rate decreases by that much, that would put you at just above 50% for the 1990 cohort. *However*, that is assuming that the time distribution of marriage doesn't change; that is; that the 1990 cohort's marriage rates will level off at the same rate as the 1970 cohort. This seems unlikely. (For a start, between ages of 32 and 33, 2.1% of the 1970 cohort married; 4.5% of the 1990 cohort did.)
Even if you take our own 10% number (which I don't think is correct; I think it's more like ~6%) - 63.7% of the 1980 cohort had married by 43. It seems likely the ever married fraction will level off in the high 60s. (About 4% of the 1970s cohort married in their late 40s.) You'd then end up with the 1990 cohort around 60%, not around 50%.