Today is the first day of Singles Week. The Census Bureau tees it off with some interesting and fun factoids (h/t: Kevin Stolarick).
- 92 million – Number of unmarried Americans 18 and older in 2006. This group comprised 42 percent of all U.S. residents 18 and older.
- 54% – Percentage of unmarried Americans 18 and older who are women.
- 60% - Percentage of unmarried Americans 18 and older who have never been married. Another 25 percent are divorced, and 15 percent are widowed.
- 86 – Number of unmarried men 18 and older for every 100 unmarried women in the United States.
- 50.7 million – Number of households maintained by unmarried men or women. These households comprise 44 percent of households nationwide.
- 30.5 million – Number of people who live alone. They comprise 27 percent of all households, up from 17 percent in 1970.
- 35% - Percentage of births in the last 12 months, as of 2006, to women who either were separated, widowed, divorced or never married.
- 39% – Percentage of opposite-sex, unmarried-partner households that include children.
- 6 million – Number of unmarried-partner households in 2006. These include 5.2 million of the opposite sex and 780,000 of the same sex.
- 24% - Percentage of unmarried people 25 and older in 2007 with a bachelor’s degree or more education.
Singles Week and the creative class – what are your thoughts?
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 am
Zygmunt Bauman’s “Liquid Love” sums it all up nicely.
We increasingly see life as a consumerist discourse. Relationships are just another item to buy like a house or a car or a food processor – we pick it up off the shelf (or from an online store), we trial it for a month or two, or we even lease it. Then when a new model comes out, we ditch the old one for the new one. We adjust our “profiles” and our “avatars” by buying new clothes, or listening to new music, or getting new friends – because those old traits such as personality, integrity and principles are just too cumbersome to adapt.
Same with the creative class. They ditch old jobs for new ones, they ditch communities and cities for the fasionable ones – and you can’t do this so easily with a partner, children, elderly relatives to care for.
Instead, we seek to offload our responsibilities by paying for them, or expecting the state to pick up the tab. So we blame the state on poor services for elderly or childcare, ignoring the part we have to play (and have played for centuries). Sure it looks good in domestic product but stinks in terms of stable and loving environments for families, decency or mental health.
Not so much the “creative class” but “irresponsible, selfish and immature class”.
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Daniel,
I beg to differ.
This is what I see happening:
In the old days, people were born in the same neighbourhood as the one they died in. They inherited the family house, worked for the same employer all their lives and married the neighbour’s daughter.
In today’s world, we have options. We go to school in one city, go to graduate school in another and perhaps move for a desired job once again. If we don’t like the city we live in, we move. If we don’t like the job we are in, we change it. We have gotten used to changing things when they don’t work for us anymore, because we can.
For better or for worse, we change our partners, when the relationships don’t work anymore.
Since the divorce laws were changed in US, the percentage of women and children abused in families (and deaths related to domestic violence) have dropped drastically. Having options like that is good.
Also, considering that the cornerstone of our lives is not reproduction necessarily (anymore), people have found their life purpose in their careers, mainly amongst the creative class. Therefore getting married is only a choice now, not a necessity.
What I see is the Creative Class distancing itself from tradition. Another reason that I have always wanted to take a look at religious practices amongst the creative class (I believe religion does not support creativity). Assuming that marriage is a traditional concept, it is expected to see it on the decline, or more common-law partners and singles amongst this population.
Referring to one of my most favourite books Logic of Life, marriage is not just a traditional/religious institution, but also a financial one. As women have gained more equality in the workforce, their only chance of financial survival is not marriage anymore. Another reason that marriage has become more of an option rather than a necessity.
The social dynamics have certainly been changing. But give it another decade, and it should correct itself in some ways. My prediction is that once the relationship dynamics between the opposite sexes have caught up with social and legal changes, you’ll see fewer singles.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 am
You neglect to mention the impact of relationship breakdown on any children and elderly relatives involved, or are you assuming that only poor people have children, and that the creative class can simply skim off the industry of these children (to push hospital trolleys and clean toilets) until the creative class has all died out because they’re too busy working themselves to death to bother having children?
And are you assuming that the creative class just let their parents rot away in “care” homes because the creative class are far too important to worry about such trifling concerns as compassion and love?
You also neglect Putnam’s findings on the impact of social capital on crime, education and health. You also neglect the impact of consumerism on mental health (cf Oliver James’s “Affluenza”).
You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you want to dimiss family bonds as “traditions” which can be forged anew. You instantly assume that by talking about “family”, I’m talking about marriage. Family bonds don’t have to be based around patriarchal hegemony and marriage that’s entirely true, they don’t even have to be based around same sex parents – but the cohesion, trust and stability of the unit and their support network is what builds society. The rest – the “virtual networks”, the “e-society” is just gimmickry of the lazy and the immature.
Your comment about career being the life purpose of the creative class just about sums it all up. If you want to enslave yourself to “the man”, then that’s your loss. Let him make himself rich at your expense, but take a look at what’s happening to the US and UK economies at the moment and tell me how on earth you can justify selling your life, your family and your soul to the man? Since when did being obsequious, servile and emasculated become “creative” or even “intelligent”? Since when did the man give a toss about their workers? Is that something that the creative class wants to subscribe to? If it is, then the creative class are the losers, not the winners.
I think you’re confusing the “creative class” with “gold digging, morally vacuous and greedy”. Sure, they’re might be a lot of overlap, but the two aren’t exclusive.
Yes of course social relationships are fluid and dynamic, but don’t fall down the post-modern trap of thinking that this means that all forms are equal and morally indistinguishable. There’s still something called “ideology” which we can use to ground how we view the world. My world view says that there are these things called “morals” and “duties” that should govern behaviour. This revolves around respecting other people and treating them how we would expect to be treated in return. This in turn means supporting my neighbours, my friends and my family, taking an active role in my community and as a citizen.
I can’t do this from 300 miles away no matter how fast I can drive or how many times I telephone. I can’t do this by working 50 hours a week and commuting on top. I can’t do this by hiring nannies, cleaners, carers, private security guards, CCTV cameras or other “in loco” services. Those who think they can are perhaps covering up and ignoring a far more sinister aspect of modern life.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Good luck!
December 4th, 2011 at 7:31 am
vnettpmkeijvoYpeqzummbjixnljhlx