Isaiah, the Lord's order of marriage, and 45% of women ages 25–44 will be single by 2030 per Morgan Stanley.

[nuclearfuels]

22 hours ago, juliann said:

Ah, we have another polygamy advocate misinterpreting scripture that has nothing to do with today. Seriously? Being childless or unwed is a reproach for women? Live in the real world much?

Have you just been biding your time to get to this topic? 

Dear Friend,

Please try hard and focus. 

Feels don't equal reals.

Feelings don't equal facts. 

If you dont / wont see a connection between data (Morgan Stanley study) and a verse from Isaiah, that's fine. 

If you do see a connection / correlation, that's fine.

Oh, and yes - I advocate polygamy. Am I supposed to feel bad because you don't?

 

[nuclearfuels]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

the corruption of the marriage covenant

What is this?

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Likewise, if we encourage those that are young and under-educated to get married, we are putting them in a position where they have a high risk of divorce. Marriage on its own hasn't (and won't) bring people out of poverty, or help them get an education, and so on.

I find it strange that those that have high education, decent income, and other temporal stability will say "ooh, marriage is good for me", but individuals from that very same demographic will then turn around to around to others and say, I know this is good for me but it won't be good for the "under educated, low income, etc.", that marriage is often bad for them. Finding this position "strange" is perhaps a bit of an understatement. I actually find it among the highest levels of social hypocrisy that is extant in society today. Not that you are saying that (but I have heard it before).

I think the moral response would be to find out why it almost universally benefits one social demographic and identify failure points in other social demographics and then one can work on to bring the good more successfully to other groups. That doesn't mean discouraging marriage though until all the conditions are met. Even in less than ideal scenarios, the benefits often far out-weigh the cons.

[Nofear]

Opinions (like mine) are cheap. Data and research are more valuable.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mobility-and-money-in-u-s-states-the-marriage-effect/

“We find that a state’s share of married parenthood is one of the best predictors of upward mobility for lower-income children; better, in fact, than the state’s racial composition or the college-educated share of its adult population.”

Edited April 4, 2024 by Nofear

[CV75]

3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

What is this?

I think that women entering marriage to escape a stigma of their own making (as implied in Chapters 3 and 4), or even imposed upon them by the culture into which they were born (as brought up early in this thread and in an article in this month’s Liahona  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/04/young-adults/14-leaving-tradition-behind-and-trusting-the-lord?lang=eng), is a corruption of what the Lord intended for the marriage covenant. I would include men taking advantage of their shame and desperation for personal gain.

It also serves as a metaphor for a problem that shows itself in many ways: mistaken priorities lead to stigma; stigma leads to compromised self-worth and dependence, or as Pharaoh did in Abraham 1:26, setting up or settling for a second-rate substitution for the ideal. On the other hand, the feeling of reproach could also lead to repentance, including a personal reassessment and response to the culture's corrupted expectations. 

Edited April 4, 2024 by CV75

[Calm]

Just now, CV75 said:

think that women entering marriage to escape a stigma of their own making (as implied in Chapters 3 and 4), or even imposed upon them by the culture into which they were born…..is a corruption of what the Lord intended for the marriage covenant. I would include men taking advantage of their shame and desperation for personal gain.

Very good point.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Opinions (like mine) are cheap. Data and research are more valuable.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mobility-and-money-in-u-s-states-the-marriage-effect/

“We find that a state’s share of married parenthood is one of the best predictors of upward mobility for lower-income children; better, in fact, than the state’s racial composition or the college-educated share of its adult population.”

And also (from that article):

Quote

But which is the cause, and which the effect? Economist Elisabeth Jacobs noted in response to our report that, “Economic insecurity and wage stagnation for the bottom 90 percent of Americans are undoubtedly contributing to family instability.” (Editor’s note: Jacobs will be responding to this post, too, as will Isabel Sawhill.)  We certainly agree that strong and stable families may be a sign of favorable economic conditions rather than vice versa. But we believe the causal arrow points both ways.

What I like about that article is the recommendations for strengthening families:

1: End the marriage penalty in means-tested welfare programs.

2: Expand apprenticeships and strengthen career and technical education.

3: Help couples give their marriage a second chance.

4: Launch civic efforts to strengthen marriage.

The first two are in my list. The last two haven't proven to be very effective in what has been previously tried (for lots of reasons). I am open to the idea that we can find better ways to make those kinds of things work - but - past history suggests that these kinds of approaches are very, very difficult to implement in way that makes a difference. The first two are much easier to evaluate and assess.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Oh, and yes - I advocate polygamy. 

I’m genuinely curious what appeals to you on this lifestyle?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I find it strange that those that have high education, decent income, and other temporal stability will say "ooh, marriage is good for me", but individuals from that very same demographic will then turn around to around to others and say, I know this is good for me but it won't be good for the "under educated, low income, etc.", that marriage is often bad for them. Finding this position "strange" is perhaps a bit of an understatement. I actually find it among the highest levels of social hypocrisy that is extant in society today. Not that you are saying that (but I have heard it before).

I think the moral response would be to find out why it almost universally benefits one social demographic and identify failure points in other social demographics and then one can work on to bring the good more successfully to other groups. That doesn't mean discouraging marriage though until all the conditions are met. Even in less than ideal scenarios, the benefits often far out-weigh the cons.

It is not that it is good for one group and bad for another. It is that the conditions that tend to lead to success are more concentrated in one group. Best done by closing the wealth inequality gap, not making healthcare an economic death sentence or tying availability to employment, and the like.

Then again there are lifelong couples getting divorced when one of them is dying just so the surviving person isn’t stuck with the medical bills so there are some perverse incentives.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m genuinely curious what appeals to you on this lifestyle?

It's hard to come up with a plus for men that isn't solely centered on all the sex with multiple partners/having your own harem.  I'm interested too in understanding what he finds appealing in the lifestyle.  Hopefully he will share.

 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's hard to come up with a plus for men that isn't solely centered on all the sex with multiple partners/having your own harem.  I'm interested too in understanding what he finds appealing in the lifestyle.  Hopefully he will share.

 

If variety is the appeal, then I get that.  Lots of people choose variety but don’t tie any knots to get it.    Monogamy is a grind for lots of people. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If variety is the appeal, then I get that.  Lots of people choose variety but don’t tie any knots to get it.    Monogamy is a grind for lots of people. 

I suppose he could also be an advocate only because he believes it's a commandment from God and not because he personally finds anything appealing about having multiple wives.

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I suppose he could also be an advocate only because he believes it's a commandment from God and not because he personally finds anything appealing about having multiple wives.

I can see that too.  If one believes that it was a commandment from God and rescinded due to man’s failings then I’m sure there are those who long to follow all of gods higher laws even if it means a very expensive and emotionally taxing lifestyle. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's hard to come up with a plus for men that isn't solely centered on all the sex with multiple partners/having your own harem.  I'm interested too in understanding what he finds appealing in the lifestyle.  Hopefully he will share.

 

I have tried polyamory. I like it.

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And also (from that article):

What I like about that article is the recommendations for strengthening families:

1: End the marriage penalty in means-tested welfare programs.

2: Expand apprenticeships and strengthen career and technical education.

3: Help couples give their marriage a second chance.

4: Launch civic efforts to strengthen marriage.

The first two are in my list. The last two haven't proven to be very effective in what has been previously tried (for lots of reasons). I am open to the idea that we can find better ways to make those kinds of things work - but - past history suggests that these kinds of approaches are very, very difficult to implement in way that makes a difference. The first two are much easier to evaluate and assess.

Sometimes we look to government to fix things (though, obviously 1. is a government thing) when social mores, conventions, and expectations are much more effective. Indeed, sometimes when government tries to fight the tide of social change it turns out badly.

[Benjamin McGuire]

19 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Sometimes we look to government to fix things (though, obviously 1. is a government thing) when social mores, conventions, and expectations are much more effective. Indeed, sometimes when government tries to fight the tide of social change it turns out badly.

The problem that we face is that social mores, conventions, and expectations by themselves aren't really that effective at instituting social change - they never have been. This doesn't mean that I am advocating for government intervention over working to improve society through other means - I am just simply stating a historical fact. And I won't say that social mores, conventions, and expectations by themselves aren't capable of change. But realistically speaking, the end of slavery in the United States would have taken a lot longer without the government stepping in to end the practice.

[Nofear]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem that we face is that social mores, conventions, and expectations by themselves aren't really that effective at instituting social change - they never have been. This doesn't mean that I am advocating for government intervention over working to improve society through other means - I am just simply stating a historical fact. And I won't say that social mores, conventions, and expectations by themselves aren't capable of change. But realistically speaking, the end of slavery in the United States would have taken a lot longer without the government stepping in to end the practice.

Indeed, sometimes government interventions has their place. Reasonable people will have variant but still rational opinions on when/how much.

Edited April 5, 2024 by Nofear

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Nofear said:

Sometimes we look to government to fix things (though, obviously 1. is a government thing) when social mores, conventions, and expectations are much more effective. Indeed, sometimes when government tries to fight the tide of social change it turns out badly.

The reason a lot more people aren’t marrying and starting families is justified economic pessimism. A lot of people who actually want children are choosing not to have them because it would be fiscally irresponsible. If you don’t think you will ever be able to afford a house even if you have two incomes why in the world would you decide to add an expense like a child?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The reason a lot more people aren’t marrying and starting families is justified economic pessimism. A lot of people who actually want children are choosing not to have them because it would be fiscally irresponsible. If you don’t think you will ever be able to afford a house even if you have two incomes why in the world would you decide to add an expense like a child?

Because renting exists?  Though that is definitely not cheap either.  

 

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because renting exists?  Though that is definitely not cheap either.  

That is actually more expensive in the long run. If you can’t afford the mortgage to buy a house you almost certainly can’t afford to rent a house of the same size.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is actually more expensive in the long run. If you can’t afford the mortgage to buy a house you almost certainly can’t afford to rent a house of the same size.

True for houses.  Not true for apartments usually.  Life is very expensive right now for sure.  I just disagree that not being able to afford to buy a house in Utah is an indication that it would be irresponsible for a person to have a child.  

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True for houses.  Not true for apartments usually.  Life is very expensive right now for sure.  I just disagree that not being able to afford to buy a house in Utah is an indication that it would be irresponsible for a person to have a child.  

It is not just Utah. Also the “have a child while living in an apartment” decision usually relied on the idea that you would eventually be able to upgrade. That is not so much the case now as it was for previous generations.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not just Utah. Also the “have a child while living in an apartment” decision usually relied on the idea that you would eventually be able to upgrade. That is not so much the case now as it was for previous generations.

It's definitely not always the case, agreed.  And it's not just Utah.  But there are plenty of states in the US where housing is still affordable (28 states according to this article).   It's not always where we need to live of course, so the cost is usually relevant to people's choices, but for millions of people in the US it's still possible to buy a home without making six figures.

Even where it's not though, not ever being able to buy a home or upgrade does not automatically mean you can't afford to have a child.  There's a difference between not being able to afford a child and not being able to afford a child and have a certain kind of lifestyle.  One doesn't have to equal the other (though maybe sometimes they will).

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's definitely not always the case, agreed.  And it's not just Utah.  But there are plenty of states in the US where housing is still affordable (28 states according to this article).   It's not always where we need to live of course, so the cost is usually relevant to people's choices, but for millions of people in the US it's still possible to buy a home without making six figures.

Affordability means different things for those who are above the medians and those who are below.

In my community, the median income is $64,000 for a two income household. The average cost of a two-bedroom home here? $470,000. Number of 2 bedroom homes for sale in my city? In February of this year there were only 67 (much higher than the 18 available single bedroom homes). Rent costs? A two bedroom apartment goes for $1,700 a month (about 300 more a month than a 1 bedroom). This is not an affordable community - and I think that there is a real sense of unreality in expecting people who cannot afford to buy a bigger home (or apartment) to move to an area where things are much cheaper. There are reasons why things are cheaper there. I can buy a traditional 4 bedroom, 2 bath home in inner city Detroit for under $50,000. Flint, Michigan has 2 bedroom homes that average $77,000. Of course, they are still (9 years in) having problems with lead in the water. There is no doubt that millions of Americans have bought a house without a six figure income - but - do you really want to live in rural Mississippi or Kentucky? And raise kids there? And will the same levels of opportunity exist? Take Mississippi - the median income (median means half the population is below this) for the entire state is just under $28,000. That sounds like a great career move when thinking about having kids ...

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Affordability means different things for those who are above the medians and those who are below.

In my community, the median income is $64,000 for a two income household. The average cost of a two-bedroom home here? $470,000. Number of 2 bedroom homes for sale in my city? In February of this year there were only 67 (much higher than the 18 available single bedroom homes). Rent costs? A two bedroom apartment goes for $1,700 a month (about 300 more a month than a 1 bedroom). This is not an affordable community - and I think that there is a real sense of unreality in expecting people who cannot afford to buy a bigger home (or apartment) to move to an area where things are much cheaper. There are reasons why things are cheaper there. I can buy a traditional 4 bedroom, 2 bath home in inner city Detroit for under $50,000. Flint, Michigan has 2 bedroom homes that average $77,000. Of course, they are still (9 years in) having problems with lead in the water. There is no doubt that millions of Americans have bought a house without a six figure income - but - do you really want to live in rural Mississippi or Kentucky? And raise kids there? And will the same levels of opportunity exist? Take Mississippi - the median income (median means half the population is below this) for the entire state is just under $28,000. That sounds like a great career move when thinking about having kids ...

Personally, I don’t want to live in any Midwest or southern state because I hate giant bugs and I love the mountains. I grew up next to Yellowstone. I’d rather deal with grizzly bears than giant cockroaches any day of the week. But there are millions of people who do live there, love it, raise children and prosper.  It’s not a career move that everybody could make but it is one that some people make and do very well. We tend to be pretty snobby about those southern states, but it’s not like the entire area lives in abject poverty.

I've had to live plenty of places that I did not want to live in order to make ends meet (one year in North Dakota was probably the worst of it).  That's often how life works for people.

When talking about the affordability of having children in this world today, pointing out that there are many places in the United States where young couples manage to have children, good housing, and still have good lives is relevant.  It doesn’t have to be all gloom and doom all the time.  Hope it is a part of having faith. 

Edited April 6, 2024 by bluebell