Forfeiting The Patriarchal Dividend

With the recent discussion of Dr. Helen’s Men on Strike I decided to take another look at the US Census Current Population Survey data on marital status and earnings.  Note that the dollar figures presented are not adjusted for inflation, and represent earnings, not income.  Also note that the years selected represent five year increments except for the first one (1999), which is as far back as I could easily find data.  As I have done before I have limited the data set to White Non Hispanics to simplify the analysis and avoid picking up trends which might be caused by changing racial demographics.  If you are interested in data for other races, I have 2012 charts for WhiteBlackAsianHispanic, and All Races.

As I mentioned in a previous post looking at the data set, what immediately stands out is the surprisingly high percentage of adults with zero earnings, especially since the data set excludes the homeless or those in prison or other institutions.  We would expect a fairly high percentage of married women to have no earnings, but surprisingly high percentages of unmarried men and women now have no earnings as well.  This trend predates the recent Great Recession, but not surprisingly there was a further increase during the recession.  Here is a look at the percentages of early thirties married and unmarried men and women with zero earnings over time:

34_zero

If we add in the percentages of each group which earned more than zero but less than $15k it looks like this:

30_34under15k

Unmarried early thirties men are the potential husbands marriage delaying women are counting on to whisk them into a glamorous married life, yet nearly a third of these men earn nothing or close to nothing.  While some of these low and non earning men are no doubt in this position for truly temporary reasons due to the extremely poor economy, for many others this represents a lack of professional attainment which will be extremely difficult to overcome.  A young man with low or no earnings has much more potential to improve than an early 30s or older man in the same position.  These men can no more go back and focus their 20s on education and career than unmarried older women can go back to their early 20s and focus on finding a husband.

There is another striking feature of the data, and that is the obvious motivation of married men.  This shows up most prominently in the extremes, when looking at the zero earnings bracket as well as the top earnings bracket.  The difference is visible across time and becomes more pronounced with higher age brackets.  The animation below walks through the different age brackets showing the percentage of each group which earned nothing over time:

noearnings

Note that as the age categories become older in the chart above unmarried men more and more closely resemble women (married or unmarried).  The trend is very similar when looking at the same progression for those earning over $75k:

over75k

There is a great deal going on with earnings trends, and this is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of the topic.  However, it is quite clear that what we are witnessing is anything but the “end of men”.  What we are seeing at the extremes is married men doing whatever it takes to succeed in a terrible economy, while the results for unmarried men are similar to that of women.

The different behaviors of married vs unmarried men is important because what we are seeing is the benefit to society of a marriage based family structure.  Marriage motivates men to work harder than unmarried men as well as women (married or unmarried).  Feminists coined the term patriarchal dividend to describe the supposed free lunch men gain in a patriarchal society.  However, what decades of feminism has proven is the real dividend was not to the men themselves but to society as a whole, as married men were motivated to produce in excess of their own personal needs.  As we continue our societal drift away from marriage we will experience less and less of this benefit, as more and more men respond to the new economic signals and elect to enjoy the decline.

See also:  

This entry was posted in Data, Marriage, Patriarchal Dividend. Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to Forfeiting The Patriarchal Dividend

  1. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    Basically many men are unemployed
    Because their services were not needed
    for the destruction of Western Culture
    Universities (student debt hedge funds)
    are filled with product free, intellect-free, subversive
    women’s studies departmentz/clubs/law schoolz/MBAs which teach women
    to follow thier gina and butt tingelzozooz on towards buttcockingsz
    and then, once desouled
    to buttcocksz men in divocre courtz and child supportz and sexual harrassment lawsuistz
    when not sellng subprime loansz in short skirtz to earn enough moneyz
    so they can one day retire with their 23 cats–one cat for
    each buttcockingsz they received in coleegz
    lzozozozozozlo

    all this was funded by the fed which can only create debt and needed the feminist movement
    to convert the debt into physical goods and property. also, because teh immoral moenetary system undermines the proeprty rights and natural righzt exalted din the western heritage, they needed da woemnsz to destory said western hetritazgez lzlzlozozlz heritage often under the guise of consertvatisms zllzozz and christainity (chruchianity) lzolzooz.

    but now all this is coming to an end as the wised economist christian noble man dalrock
    is pointing out in his trademark sceintific/humorous (and always hopeful, becuase truthful) method.

    lzozozozozoozozoz

  2. Bob Wallace says:

    The growth of government has destroyed the economy. Had wages continued to go out at the same rate as they had in the ’50 (and there is no reason they should not) the average salary would be in-between $90,000 and $100,000 a year. If you don’t believe me, for those who can figure it yourself.

    I owned a taxi for a while. When I started one of the older drivers (now dead) told me when he first started (in the ’50s) he was making what today would be $60,000 a year. Since we were independent contractors, he took a month off every year, put his wife in the sidecar of his motorcycle and toured the country. Other guys had fishing cabins in the mountains near streams. And this was from owning one taxi. Thirty years after him I used to work 25 hours a week and still made $26,000.

    Those days are gone. Destroyed. I know more than one smart, educated man who has said, “The hell with this” and have become night security guards so they go to work, sit, work on whatever interests them, then go home and forget about work. I know others who did make a lot of money, were forced to work ten hours a day, with a round trip of two hours. Some of them have also said, “The hell with this” and took something making less money with a lot less hours and a lot less stress.

    Men should be highly-paid without their lives being destroyed. That’s what the free market gave them – and we no longer have the free market.

  3. Frank says:

    What women perceive as laziness and lack of ambition is really men responding logically to a hostile climate of gynocentrism and high taxes. I don’t push to earn a higher salary just so I can hit another tax bracket and see 50% of my sweat and blood co-opted to pay for free birth control and welfare. I don’t seek out marriage with fervent zeal because legally it’s a one way proposition, and very few women have an understanding of the risks we must assume to marry them. Conservatives were all worried about homosexuality, but it’s really female solipsism that destroyed the institution of marriage, and with that, our country as well.

  4. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    The value of the dollar was destroyed by the feminist movement.

    Once upon a time $50,000,000 would buy a man a family with a virginal, loyal wife–the most important, exalted, foundational institution in Western Civilization.

    Today $1,000,000 won’t even buy you a woman who as only been buttcocked four timez and ginacoked 15 timez, and who hasn’t been deosuled and taught to be more loyal to da FED and bernanke elite than to GOD, FAMILY, and MAN; and who won’t seize your assets and children as she was taught to do in college, in-between her butt9occkingz/desouloing sessions which were often secrtely taped for extra credit and large cash advances from publishing houses.

    Because the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN exalt the family at their center and circumference via the words of MOSES, JESUS, and HOMER, neither HElen Smith nor Charlotte Allen nor Michelle Malkin ever mention the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, as doing so would oppose the neocon trotskyite bolshevik mission to destory the family and profit via the bernankifiaction of teh womenz alongside the dollarz, which they are succeeding at.

  5. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    ^^^^^ oops that $50,000,000 should be $50,000 lzozozlzlz took too mcuh of my ritaalin adeerlool prespciptiozn todayz sorryz!! lzozlzzlzo

  6. TMG says:

    Great analysis. Perhaps tangential, but a lot of the consumer spending + government spending + money printing that has kept the economy afloat lately is based on debt. So basically, our society killed the golden goose of male productivity and replaced it with rapidly increasing debt.

  7. Tom says:

    Young men see women in their 20s sleeping with losers, and so they have no interest in building a career. I think they are somewhat correct: yes (some of) these women will change their mind in their 30’s to look for a reliable provider, but only to divorce him a few years later. Is it worth building a career for that?

    The legal framework of high taxes, no-fault divorce, alimony and child support is a brutal system of exploitation that is aimed straight at men who assume a role of provider. It is hard to see what benefit might be for men, to build a career.

  8. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    everyone should read dalrock’s amazing post:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/debasing-marriage/

    “Men looking to marry face the same kind of dilemma ancient merchants used to face. Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men. Marriage for men no longer means:
    Being the legally and socially recognized head of the household.
    An expectation of regular sex.
    Legal rights to children.
    Lifetime commitment.”

    Basically the more the bernakekekz bernanakes claim of women via buttchetxing them in college while saddling them with massive student debt, and then forcing them into cubiclez to sell subprime loans in short skirts or read the neococnthz “news” in short skirts on fox tv foxy fox tv, the less value they have as wivez.

    This process of “Bernankification” is now officially a part of the English Language:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bernankified

    Bernankified: n. Weighed down with a soul-crushing amount of federally-guaranteed student-loan debt. The name is obviously derived from Fed Chief Ben Bernanke. “I met a cute chick, but she was so bernankified that I couldn’t see a future, so I dropped her.”

  9. heythatsmycar says:

    In related news, the New Zealand government is considering a law that will permit women to murder their husbands in cold blood…
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8944707/Legal-gap-for-battered-spouses-who-kill

  10. Michael says:

    So basically if I get married, I’m going to make more money?

  11. Carnivore says:

    @Frank: I don’t push to earn a higher salary just so I can hit another tax bracket and see 50% of my sweat and blood co-opted to pay for free birth control and welfare.

    http://www.freemansperspective.com/money-issues-in-the-us/

    The working person of 1905 kept his or her money. They ended up saving somewhere between a quarter and a half of everything they made – after living expenses.

  12. BC says:

    So basically if I get married, I’m going to make more money?

    Well, you’ll be pressed to make more money.
    And you’ll keep less. Much, much less for yourself, even if you stay married.

  13. Michael says:

    @ Frank,

    The more you make the more they take.

    Its become harder to reduce tax liability if you are self employed these days. And is nearly impossible as an employee. The tax system is slowly morphing into a USSR style reporting system where whistle blowing is rewarded to everyone. In manga ways you are no longer protected under attorney client privledge. You have zero protection against CPAs.

    Stay away from CPAs. CPA licenses are controlled by the government. CPAs are not on your side. They are on the side of the IRS and state. They use fear mongering to scare you into being compliant with all of the tax regulations nobody can understand. As a result you don’t get the results you get from a tax attorney.

    I fired my CPA many years ago for not giving me the same options as a tax attorney on a certain matter. When their stories did not add up the CPAs response was that making sure I pay the higher amount was his job and started trying to scare me with fear of an audit and that I should feel “lucky” to pay higher taxes at 28% and 35% then raised his whiny voice about how it’s not “fair” because most people don’t make as much and I should not be so negative but feel good about paying higher taxes.

    I have no idea how the jack ass still in business. I will only use a tax attorney from now on.

  14. whatever says:

    Frank raved:

    What women perceive as laziness and lack of ambition is really men responding logically to a hostile climate of gynocentrism and high taxes. I don’t push to earn a higher salary just so I can hit another tax bracket and see 50% of my sweat and blood co-opted to pay for free birth control and welfare.

    Yes, yes, I know, you are insane. Medicare and Social Security are 32% of the federal budget. Defense and Veteran’s Benefits are 23%. So 55% of the budget is oldsters and war. 5% is interest on the federal debt. That leaves 40% left for everyone else. It’s pretty clear your primary interests of old people(yourself) and war are being taken care of. Everyone else gets to “share” the remaining 40%.

  15. GKChesteron says:

    I’d like to see more on this especially pushing further back. I know people have done studies on the economic benefits that families afford in specialization. That is, mom can take care of the kids exclusively and dad can earn. It might be interesting to see household output in economic activity based on married or not married. That way you can tally single men and women against married couples.

  16. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    With all the handwringing of the neocons/conservatives about the decline of marriage, I think we need a headline like this:

    After Fifty Years of Neocons/Trotskyites Instituting the Same Bolshevik Policies They Used to Destroy Marriage and Grow The State in Soviet Russia, Neocons are Shocked SHOCKED! to Witness the Massive Growth of the State and Destruction of Marriage

    lzozozozozlo

  17. Ton says:

    Social security and Medicare etc are wealth transfer payments and are therefore welfare.

  18. Sharrukin says:

    Young men don’t seem interested in creating a family nest-egg when the bird in question more closely resembles a vulture.

  19. They Call Me Tom says:

    Wow… to put it shortly. I mean some things seem to make sense… I always said during the layoffs in architecture over the last few years, that I’m certain it was easy enough for me to absorb four or five months out of work, but that I could only imagine how rough it was for the men with wives and children. It’s easy to tighten your own belt, but to tighten the belt of your wife and children? It has to create a sense of desperation (and as put in the article above… more ambition).

    I just didn’t realize it was that big a difference. Yes, if every marriage contained a supportive spouse who wanted as much for her husband as he wanted for her… it would make more sense. But, I know and you know that modern women haven’t been brought up to want the best for their husbands as a rule. So how can married men statistically be any more motivated than single men? It’s surprising to me then, that married men as a rule are showing statistically to be more motivated in the way of income.

  20. Lyn87 says:

    /begin threadjack

    Sorry for going O/T, but I’m looking for an article I read a while ago with a title along the lines of “Judge Harshly For You Have Been Harshly Judged,” or words to that effect. I can’t find it anywhere, and I sort-of recall it being from a Christian-themed MRM blog. My searches have been fruitless so far. Can anyone direct me to it?

    Thanks in advance.

    /end threadjack

  21. Dr. Faust says:

    So End of Men was wrong. How interesting. A woman writing an article, childishly sticking her tongue out at men and only looking at the surface details while carefully avoiding the depths of what she was saying. I’ve never heard of a woman doing such a thing. It’s not like anyone has pointed that out before.

    “This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important.” –Schopenhauer

    It’s almost as if the genius philosopher knew something.

  22. Hurting says:

    What would be interesting is to see some longitudinal analysis of earnings over time of similarly situated people at the outset of their careers (say, men under age 25 with undergraduate engineering degrees). How would marriage affect their earnings?

    While it is tempting to assume that married men earn more because of them being married (e.g., they’re striving to provide for a family) and that unmarried men earn less because they not motivated thusly, I’d need to be swayed that they’re not truly to separate populations distinguished by earnings capability a priori.

    What shed more light on the story is to disaggregate the unmarried groups into divorced/never married. You can bet your ass that the earnings of the unmarried men group is artificially inflated by the divorced subset who have no choice but to keep their shoulders to the wheel.

    Not that I’m bitter or anything.

  23. They Call Me Tom says:

    p.s. @GK Chesterton- I’d be curious to see a comparison of marriage pre-‘No-Fault Divorce’ and post-NFD. That would be the best way to compare marriages of specialization vs. marriages of generalization (if I’m understanding your meaning with the word specialization correctly). Of course you’d have to adjust for inflation and all of that, but it would be an interesting thing to examine.

  24. Michael says:

    Look at the gap between the income of single men and married men. These charts are a case for marriage. Or are they just a case for successful marriage?

  25. Michael says:

    Is the income for married men by household or by husband? Household income is always higher than single/non married income.

  26. Zorro says:

    @/Dr. Faust: Your post was fucking epicness.

  27. whatever says:


    Social security and Medicare etc are wealth transfer payments and are therefore welfare.

    We both know he wasn’t talking about old men and old women.

  28. @Whatever

    “That leaves 40% for the rest of us”

    I’ll take a 40% reduction in taxes.

  29. whatever says:


    I’ll take a 40% reduction in taxes.

    But I still have to pay for your medical care, your Social Security, and your retarded wars, right?

    I’ll think I’ll take a 55% reduction in taxes right now.

    You can pay still pay my 40% though. Consider it payback for being an unbelievable idiot for decades.

  30. Drew says:

    Good work in the data visualization.

    I think the jumps from correlations to narrative/causation is a little sloppy. For example, do the married men make more because they are higher motivated to do so? Or are they a fully developed and self motivated character that naturally results in more financial success and able to attract women in general to marriage?

    Are the unmarried men less motivated because of the rigged system?
    Entirely plausible, and its going to be what the manosphere wants to hear. But I don’t think this simple data proves it. Hints at it, but does not prove.

    Other hints we could look for to support this narrative:
    tracking men before and currently married to see if there is a step change in the number of hours worked, or career track changes

    tracking post divorce men to see if others in similar careers continue to progress while the divorcee flat-lines or declines, or again, look for hours worked

  31. Frank says:

    whatever, you shouldn’t drink before making comments here.

  32. Frank says:

    Look at the gap between the income of single men and married men. These charts are a case for marriage. Or are they just a case for successful marriage?

    You make more, but you typically save less and have far less disposable income. My best friend is married and makes a lot more money than I do, but I save 3 times as much money as he does.

  33. whatever says:


    whatever, you shouldn’t drink before making comments here.

    Does the rabid dog not like it when others don’t play nice?

  34. greyghost says:

    Married men make more that is why they are married. They are also family men that followed the blue pill path to husband and fatherhood. The zero income types are men just not motivated to earn. Those guys with game can get pussy but not wives as if they wanted one. Also the less you earn the less of a CS hit you get. Constant misandry has the effect of men not giving a damn.

  35. A♠ says:

    Hello dont you know me
    Im the dirt beneath your feet
    The most important fool you forgot to see
    Ive seen how you give it
    Now I want to receive
    I know that you would do the same for me

    I know Im headed for the bottom
    But Im riding you all the way

    For all of your kisses turned to spit in my face
    For all that reminds me which is my place
    For all of the times when you made me disappear
    This time Im sure you will know that Im here

    I know Im headed for the bottom
    But Im riding you all the way

    My place was beneath you but now Im above
    And now I send you a message of love
    A simple reminder of what you wont see
    A future so holy without me

    I know Im headed for the bottom
    But Im riding you all the way

    – ‘Mailman’ by Soundgarden

  36. Robert in Arabia says:

    Where I live there are no taxes.Where I live the King showers benefits on all the citizens.

  37. Casey says:

    @ Whatever

    “But I still have to pay for your medical care, your Social Security, and your retarded wars, right?”

    I agree with you on the ‘retarded wars’ part.

    Disagree with you re: medical care & social security………these benefit both men & women.
    Although I’ll wager medical care is skewed much more heavily towards women.

    Count up the number of social programs that benefit women directly & indirectly……you’ll see who’s propping up whom.

    And 5% of the budget is interest? Horseshit…….try 10%. (and will rise dramatically as things get out of hand in the bond market.)

  38. Casey says:

    What part of an ‘incentives’ based system escapes women?

    Men have been beaten with a stick for 40+ years, and we are to continuously supposed to come back for more? Single men checking out of this tawdry game is a rational response to the misandry levied by women over the last 4 decades.

    Perhaps these graphs illustrate something else very important……HYPERGAMY. Women continue to want to marry ABOVE their earnings power. So, all the high wage male earners are married. (Where they are promptly made miserable by a wife who takes all the authority and offloads all the responsibility).

    A wife who spends & directs too much, and obeys & fucks too little.

  39. Johnycomelately says:

    Brilliant post.
    This is what sets Dalrock apart from the rest.

    It is interesting to note that the level of married men earning below 15k remained relatively flat during the bubble and the 2009 recession while for unmarried men it increased by 25%.

    The over 75k data is interesting in that it shows that in 1999 the jump over point for the unmarried men to marriage was 30-34 while in 2012 the jump over point is in the 35-39 category which shows they are marrying later, while all else remains relatively the same.

    The data clearly shows that the lack of marriageable men is taking place at the bottom as the number of low income unmarried men increases.

  40. Chris says:

    Lyn, the article you were looking for may be by fearsome pirate. I linked to it a while ago, and the URL is http://metalutheran.blogspot.mx/2013/04/judge-harshly-for-ye-are-constantly.html
    The link is working now…

  41. Pingback: Forfeiting The Patriarchal Dividend | Viva La Manosphere!

  42. Ton says:

    No whatever by your reckoning, 70% goes to old folks and what have you and only 30% goes to wars and military ( in simple terms).

    It’s easy to tell when liberals are arguing in bad faith.

    Wives are expensive. A friend of mine is paying 1k a month in alimony. His cash flow has improved since he no longer bares the full weight of supporting her. A man doesn’t need much money when he’s not supporting a woman. Hells bells look at who drives the consumer spending. Husbands have to earn more.

  43. What would be rather interesting to see, would be the illegal economy. Here in South Africa it is about 25 to 35% of the actual legal economy. Doing business under the table is making a come back and unmarried men are more capable of hiding earnings because they don’t need to spend so much on living expenditure as married men.

  44. Caydius says:

    I ran across this link recently. It doesn’t relate to the current article, but it fits in nicely within the site’s overall narrative:

    http://houston.craigslist.org/mis/3943266068.html

    It’s from the Craiglist personals. Here is the content incase the entry gets deleted:

    ———————————————————
    I’m pregnant. Need you to contact me – w4m – 38 (Galleria area)

    We met on March 6, 2013, at the Galleria ice rink. I was staying at the Doubletree hotel near the mall on business trip from San Francisco. You said you were 23 and worked nearby. I was the 38 year old who worked for Baker Hughes in the red dress and flip flops. We hit it off and I invited you back to my hotel room. You only gave your name as Rick. Well I’m pregnant and need you to contact me urgently. Need your medical history. Urgent you contact me quickly to also arrange child support.
    ——————————————————-

  45. handbanana says:

    married men scramble to make as much money as they can, so that their horrible wives can drain the joint account on clothing and pillows and all kinds of worthless crap. don’t forget the life insurance.

  46. earl says:

    “So basically if I get married, I’m going to make more money?”

    Nope…you’ll go from having money…to never having it again.

    I’m single and all the money I have is spent on what I want.

  47. Opus says:

    @Caydius

    No such thing as free sex.

    Which puts me in mind of last Friday night.

    About half past midnight I could see this young woman tottering along on her high heels. She then collapsed in the gutter. I had to cross the road in her direction by which time her female friend was on the scene. The collapsed one was pretty far gone – legs akimbo and looking up at me blankly – and her friend addressed me and asked for my assistance. I replied that as she was a ‘strong empowered woman’ ™ she could do it herself – for which I received a mouthful of abuse. I turned and sauntered off. It is not safe to give assistance to young woman who get into such a state and anyway I do not work for the health service.

    So much for the end of men.

  48. earl says:

    @Opus

    I go to work well before the sun rises.

    The number of women I see wandering around the streets by themselves after the bars close never ceases to amaze me.

    If I see a dude wandering around those hours of the night…I really have no fear. But I do fear what those night vipers could do to me if I even glance in their direction.

    Treat them like the predators they are.

  49. Ton says:

    Underground economy, I’m part of it. Besides no taxes, the fun part is the money goes to fun stuff. Cannot really buy a house or put it in a 401k, but no one is tracking ammo, second hand guns, etc etc paid in cash

  50. earl says:

    Want to get married and make millions of dollars? This is what happens when a NBA player does it and the ex-wife goes crazy.

  51. greyghost says:

    Now I’m almost certain guys the already make good money or are credentialed to make good money are the ones marrying. Marriage does not make a man more productive. I think it was just blue pill cultural narrative the married men make more and live longer due to marriage. What this shows me is men with those characteristics are the men women want to marry. The actual marriage strike is men not working to be marriage material.

  52. Lyn87 says:

    Chris,

    Thanks. I’ve been looking for that for days.

  53. Caydius says:

    I’ve vacillated if I should go into this or not, but it’s just too perfect not to share. My first red pill was taken almost a year ago. I came across this site, and I was astonished how perfectly those nebulous pieces that represented my prior understanding of women, now dovetailed seamlessly together. As my understanding continues to grow (special thanks to Dalrock and the regulars here), I’m taken back by many of my interactions with women – events that once would have been imperceptible to me, are now fully transparent.

    Anyways – now on to my story. I got back into town last Friday from a two week business trip. I checked my mail the day before I left for the trip, and I had received an envelope, addressed in pink – a woman’s penmanship was obvious – with no return address.

    I open the envelope to find a handwritten love letter. I’m talking about an old-fashioned, secret admirer, love letter. She doesn’t have anything in the letter that identifies who she is. In fact, we have never even met. She used to live in the same neighborhood and has only seen me around.

    She had left an email address to contact her if I was interested. The letter was really well written, and I figured – “sure – why not.” Well I ended up exchanging messages with this girl over the course of my trip. What followed could serve as a case study in Dalrockinomics.

    -She was married and lived in my neighborhood until her divorce a year ago. She had been eyeing me for about two years.
    -She frivorced her husband, who in her words was a really great guy because 1) “He wasn’t the man I needed him to be” and 2) he deserved a woman who would get tingly from him. I shit you not – she used the word tingle several times. She also used the word to describe how she felt when she saw me and how her husband didn’t make her feel it.
    -She wanted a man with alpha traits. Again – she actually used the term alpha.
    -Her mother has been divorced 4 times. Her mother believes marriage imprisons women and treats them as slaves, since there is an expectation that she perform duties such as laundry.

    I gave her a small dose of red pill when I confronted her about frivolous divorce. My points were well received, which somewhat surprised me. All in all – the whole encounter blew my mind.

  54. greyghost says:

    Ton
    The underground economy is how a married man and a divorced man need to live. Those guys with the zero income are in the underground economy. Work any job to have a W2 and make and much as you want or can under the table. buy used and pay bills in person with cash or money orders. Many small businesses and shops are available to get things done cash and carry from AC on the house, Electrical work, auto motive repair, purchases and modifications. Craigslist, ebay salvation army and Goodwill stores and pawn shops.
    I know of two different guys that buy and sell cars they repair for sale later. these guys have cash all of the time. (Short bed regular cab chevy pick up trucks are gold.) One guy loves BMW and has made a mint off of those things because it is so expensive to get work done on them. Once you have a couple of specialty tools and the knowledge it is a money press to repair and sell those things.

  55. greyghost says:

    Caydius
    Nice story Cadius. Everything looks different now. I see stuff I never noticed. Women are not as beautiful as they used to be. And every once in a while you spot some indicators of a good woman by her mannerisms with the guy she is with very rare.

  56. Shameful says:

    Among my friends i see this. I am the exception in my circle of friends as i am the only single guy who is a high paid professional, everyone else has taken the slacker path or more rarely married. Married friends are harder working and always looking for that extra dollar.

    Of note women used to get visibly turned off by my white collar profession, now they all comment “oh wow that sounds interesting!”While so economic situation is clearly worse. They are thinking “oh wow that sounds lucrative” vs before “boring! !!”

  57. Solomon says:

    married men make more money than singles because they damn well have to.

    The pressure to keep teh missus haaaaapy is like no other. If you don’t, there’ll be hell to pay, both in her justified cruelty and mockery of your underperforming ass, as well as the threat of imminent hypergamy that if he cannot maintain and sustain, she can (and will) upgrade ruthlessly.

    Which is to say, that dear female whom you have poured out your heart to, promised your life to, and invested your hopes in, will check out and go get railed and pounded grotesquely by a superior male, affirming your inadequacy for all time, and robbing you of everything you hold dear.

    you’re damn right he’s gonna make more money than the skittles guy.

  58. gdgm+ says:

    A bit of an odd sidebar, concerning the rise of the “bachelorette party” in the UK and US:
    Where did the hen party explosion come from?

    “The modern hens weekend is a fairy tale experience all right – scripted by the Brothers Grimm. On the stressometer, psychologists rate planning a wedding as equally traumatic to moving house and bereavement.”

  59. Dan says:

    I definitely match that data. I’m not married but interested in it, and that’s the only reason I’m putting effort into making more money. I moved across the country to work in oil. I worked two 20 hour says in the last three. I would NOT be doing that if not for the carrot of a possibly happy marriage dangling in front of me.

  60. lagunabeachfogey says:

    How do you account for the single, unmarried chaps motivated to make lots of money by the price of bespoke suits, luxury goods, handmade shoes, sports cars, beautiful women, escorts, and exotic travel.

  61. “Social security and Medicare etc are wealth transfer payments and are therefore welfare.”

    Nonsense. You pay into Social Security, then you take out of it. And Medicare is no more a wealth transfer than any other health insurance program.

    “I’ll take a 40% reduction in taxes”

    Along with a 100% reduction in interstate highways, communications satellites, medical research, deposit insurance, etc? No thanks.

  62. “In related news, the New Zealand government is considering a law that will permit women to murder their husbands in cold blood…”

    Holy ****! That should do wonders for the marriage rate.

  63. thehumanscorch says:

    married men make more money than singles because they damn well have to.

    The pressure to keep teh missus haaaaapy is like no other. If you don’t, there’ll be hell to pay, both in her justified cruelty and mockery of your underperforming ass, as well as the threat of imminent hypergamy that if he cannot maintain and sustain, she can (and will) upgrade ruthlessly.

    Which is to say, that dear female whom you have poured out your heart to, promised your life to, and invested your hopes in, will check out and go get railed and pounded grotesquely by a superior male, affirming your inadequacy for all time, and robbing you of everything you hold dear.

    you’re damn right he’s gonna make more money than the skittles guy.

    Young men, behold the best lessons in life before you tie the knot.
    Middle men, behold the lessons you’ll spend your most productive years paying for.
    Old men, behold who she was dreaming about while you spent your life paying for her.

  64. St Swithunus says:

    “Nonsense. You pay into Social Security, then you take out of it. And Medicare is no more a wealth transfer than any other health insurance program. ”

    No, this is not a savings scheme, it’s a ponzi scheme. You pay in, that money funds current expenditure, when you come to claim, you’d best hope that the current youngsters are then paying in… If that isn’t true, perhaps you’d like to point out where your money is being saved, to later repay your ‘investment’?

    And as there is no correlation between what you pay in and what you receive, somebody is having their wealth transferred to somebody else. Odds are that it’s a ‘Young He’ paying indirectly for an ‘Older She’, but more generally a ‘He’s paying for ‘She’s.

    You really need to pay more attention, sorry about that, but you do…you are likely being scammed by never being likely to recoup your ‘investment’ (‘fine’), and that’s before you look at sky-rocketting premiums.

  65. St Swithunus says:

    “Holy ****! That should do wonders for the marriage rate.”

    Now here, we have no disagreement whatsoever…

    any proof of the DV required? (rhetorical question, I’m afraid). Just the claim, huh?

  66. earl says:

    “Holy ****! That should do wonders for the marriage rate.”

    Women will start killing their husbands for that premo life insurance policy.

  67. What do the Institution of marriage and the city of Detroit have in common?

  68. greyghost says:

    MGTOW in marriage is not pushing any more. Using game instead of blue pill stress of making money. Billionaires get frivorced so what the hell are you going to do 12 more hours a week on the job. MGTOW in marriage is after the kids get wife’s career on track and make her the bread winner. Get bills in her name to help build up her credit. Get stable job that covers the security of the home and let her chase the dollars. YOU PLAY THAT GAME YOU MAKE A GOOD FRIVORCE TARGET, also you have the benefit of emotionally conditioning the wife on life working on her own. Having in not as fun as wanting especially when the people paying you want results. Make you money under the table and learn some dread game and indirectly talk to your wife commenting on this stupid bitch that dumped her husband and how that is working for her.

    Very interesting topic Dalrock

  69. Leo G says:

    Couple quick things – could this delay in marriage be tied to the fact that our longevity is rising?

    Lately in my area, there has been a pronounced push to get couples to see an investment counsellor as well as a marriage planner. Seems that up to 30% of marriage breakdowns are from financial stresses.

  70. SlargTarg says:

    How do you account for the single, unmarried chaps motivated to make lots of money by the price of bespoke suits, luxury goods, handmade shoes, sports cars, beautiful women, escorts, and exotic travel.

    There is a wide variety of male types including homosexuals who tend to earn more then straights.

    However, on average men are far less materialistic than women. A much larger number of men than women can find joy in the simple pleasures of life with inexpensive hobbies and low/no cost wilderness travel adventures rather than some high-life European vacation.

  71. Taller says:

    Is There Anything Good About Men?
    “… feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.

    The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.”

    http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

  72. Bluedog says:

    Dalrock,
    Much of the outcomes reflected in the data you are picking up would not be surprising to economists, especially labor economists.
    The “employment rate” that is routinely referred to in MSM is the employment rate among people who have a job, or else do not have a job, and are not looking.
    When you account for the great varieties of classes of individuals who are not looking for a job and do not have one, then the actual gross employment rate tends to be around 59%. You have retirees, stay-at-home parents and children. An important detail to judging the health of the labor market (but not directly related to the upshot of your post) is that the income of all individuals is taken into account when we determine “mean personal income”. So, infants, toddlers, high school students, retirees, stay at home parents, etc … all people who earn $0.00 / year, are accounted for in census data that finds mean personal income to be around $39K. That means a lot of people, have to earn A LOT of money, to bring all of those Zeros up to an AVERAGE of $39K.

    The government and the MSM regularly employ two statistics that serve to blind people from this striking oddity of the labor market:

    1) Median household income ($50,054 in 2011)
    2) Mean Household Income of Quintiles … which serves to conceal the overall mean household income

    Notice a pattern? The government and media publish 3 data points:

    1) Mean personal income
    2) Median household income
    3) Median household income of quintiles

    You will be hard pressed to find “mean household income”. There is a good reason for this, but it is usually the bad reason that you will hear hauled out like a used up trope and canard:

    “We don’t use mean household income because that is thrown off by outliers … you know like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison.”

    Well … in fact – that is not true. Even their gross yearly incomes in the tens and hundreds of millions (not their net worths of billions) is not enough, in a $15.7 trillion economy will not affect mean personal income that much.

    What affects it is broad swaths … basically – top 1%, 5% and 25% taking outsized shares.

    So – not to derail the conversation, but as I’ve said in other forums … I usually take my role as “listen”. I find left and right both have points to make which if we can separate wheat chaff both serve in aggregate to give a more complete picture of the actual reality we are up against. The OWS folks, while off on a great many things, are on to something about the distribution of income.

    And from here I can go on and on, but I’ll just say this: boilerplate right-wing narrative is that all us bleary eyed dems are socialist nincompoops. Maybe. If you were a fly on the wall though when none of you are around, and just listened, you’d hear us talking about inefficient markets. Many things can make markets inefficient. One is outsized government that abuses its monopoly on authority. Another is outsized individuals or special interests (i.e.: corporations) which game rules (i.e.: tax and trade and lately intellectual property) to distort markets to their own profit, at everyone else’s expense.

    My observation: the right if very good at detecting the former, … has a damn huge blind spot for the latter even when it is found complaining about the over shoots of “corporate capitalism” and “bankers”. The left is better at seeing the market abuses of private capital than the right, but when the left points this out, even in the language and with empirical data of markets, we get ripshot back into the “you’re just a bunch of socialists” narrative.

    The only ones whose interests are served by the persistence of that dialetic, are those gaming the system, at all of our expense.

  73. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    do christian believe in jesus christ? would jesus help marriages endure?

  74. Bluedog says:

    You know … I got lost in my own point.

    So the thing about median personal and household income is this – if you are comparing your own income to roughly $50K … you PROBABLY think you are doing ok and that all is right with the universe. You are inoculated. You don’t ask further questions.

    On the other hand, if you compare yourself to a statistical mean … i.e.: what we REALLY mean when we say “average” household income, which is closer to $100K … then you might start to wonder … that takes a lot of households, making LOTS more than $100K, to get a $100K mid point, when almost all households, even those who reckon themselves to do well at say $80K, make less than $100K.

    Something is wrong with this market.

    It is a start, but it is not enough to believe in “capital” and “capitalism”. We enjoy a shared, growing prosperity because we believe in **markets** that operate under rules that assure a fair distribution from the value generated by the economy, to all of its participants. To the degree that we allow a myopic view of “capitalism” that fetishizes the private capital side of the warp and woof to cannibalize the shared, common, public (underscore: PUBLIC … no ONE owns it) … market (all found in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations … but no where given much rift in Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal or the Virtue of Selfishness thank you Ayn Rand) … if we ignore the health of this market where we all must trade our wares and trust that its rules reckon to us a fair recompense for our labor, then we are unwittingly aiding and abetting the forces that create the anxiety that self anesthetizes with the denial that says “enjoy the fall”. A broken market can happen bring about a fall, but it won’t be enjoyed.

  75. Dalrock says:

    @Bluedog

    My observation: the right if very good at detecting the former, … has a damn huge blind spot for the latter even when it is found complaining about the over shoots of “corporate capitalism” and “bankers”. The left is better at seeing the market abuses of private capital than the right, but when the left points this out, even in the language and with empirical data of markets, we get ripshot back into the “you’re just a bunch of socialists” narrative.

    I think our biggest problem today is that the right and the left both aren’t interested in tackling some of the more glaring disruptions in the economy for those not part of the elite. I wrote a post a while back on the issue of China’s manipulation of the currency markets, and how both right and left are too invested in the problem to be willing to address it.

  76. PacRim Jim says:

    To this old fogy, the situation is as clear as it is unfortunate:
    Judging from the popular culture, many women have chosen to become sluts.
    Quite naturally, young men refuse to buy what is now free.

  77. Farm Boy says:

    it’s not “fair” because most people don’t make as much and I should not be so negative but feel good about paying higher taxes.

    Barack Obama in his Columbia days?

  78. Pingback: Rethinking the marriage wage premium. | Dalrock

  79. Bluedog says:

    Dalrock,
    re:, “I think our biggest problem today is that the right and the left both aren’t interested in tackling some of the more glaring disruptions in the economy for those not part of the elite. I wrote a post a while back on the issue of China’s manipulation of the currency markets, and how both right and left are too invested in the problem to be willing to address it.”


    I agree.

    I am sympathetic to the impulses and decisions of the left since the 1960s to shift from rival-class representation to championing the rights of women and minorities. We have been a modernity at odds with the imbalances of our past. If the left didn’t do this, who would have.

    Yet the left has drunk deeply from a poison by way of the ideology of “privilege” to the point where you can go places on the left and to occupy those places, is to be in an intellectual hall of mirrors.

    Those sympathetic to the right can go wrong though when they buy into the right-wing mass narrative painting all those sympathizing left as socialists. We are capitalists, and we “get” markets.

    If you can tear off from the left those that get markets, and who get the error of the privilege prism, then you have carved out sympathizers and allies. While we are busy labeling each other, we remain blind to the ability to ally, and hopeless.

    I watched some of the Lord of the Rings episodes with my kids this weekend. I was struck by a number of themes the series illustrated, but one heavy was the discussion between Gandalf and Elrond at Rivendell.

    Faced with an existential threat, they were not discussing purity of ideology. Their discussion was of how to amass sufficient allies to beat off the threat.

    The nuance, and necessity of allies, is lost on too many. If leaders do not rise above it, we have no hope.

  80. WG says:

    There is no compromise possible between the true Right, and with those busily “championing the rights of women and [non-Whites].” This is what got us in trouble to begin with.

  81. Bluedog says:

    WG,
    Between the “true Right” and what?

    We have a one-polarity system in this country. There are unfortunately only two sides to the polarity. For much of its history our left was a labor-capitalist left concerned with advancing the interests of the lower economic classes. It is easy to forget or just not be aware that there are realities of 1959, and even 1979 … that I wager few people reading or commenting here would or could go back to. Most of us – rightly – would reckon those realities morally intolerable.

    I chose to interpret the history like this: the left had no choice but to prioritize, and there was only one left. There theoretically could have been more to the left than what it has become – but in the post WWII, in 1946, UAW settled for a raise, rather than a European-style place at the table. Labor has been in decline in the US ever since, and its value to the left is at best, tenuous.

    The left is undergoing its own soul-searching over this. There is increasing recognition that identity politics may stand between a diminishing return and a dead letter. The recognition is best noticed in the fact that those with a stake in the current distribution of power feel a need to re-validate race-based affirmative action and repudiate class-based interpretations of larger economic, social woes.

    If you are talking about “true Right” and replacing “minorities” with “[non-whites]” … it is possible there’s nothing I can say that can reach you. What I can say, whether it reaches you or not, is that people of good will and good faith and strong reason, exist on the left, and the weakness of labor and how that weakness is translating into human suffering … even the suffering of whites as it were … is becoming increasingly felt. The left will have to navigate its own politics to find if it is possible to forge a “post-identity” left, one that goes back to championing people, in all forms that people come, when people are borne to capitalism, but not to capital. If you can’t make peace with people on the left with a vision like this, then you are right, “There is no compromise possible”.

  82. @Bluedog:

    The vision on the left that I see is a vision of deceptiveness. The left is currently faking that the border is secure, faking that obamacare will increase employment and lower the deficit, again increasing the pathology of identity politics by playing race games, continuing to print money in the form of QE3, abandoning personnel in Libya to die, encouraging more to go on welfare, faking the issue of sequester when in fact the budget should be cut for real, etc, etc, etc.

    Our government needs to be reformed kinda the way obama said he would reform, but actually did the opposite by just being increasing deceptive. Bluedog, I do not understand your defense of the left. I wish I did so I could rehash some of this better with you.

    We need to return to a capitalistic style economy, and turn away from this government economy. I wish you well sir….

  83. Mark says:

    @opus

    “”I replied that as she was a ‘strong empowered woman’ ™ she could do it herself – for which I received a mouthful of abuse””

    I had a similar experience like this last summer.I was sitting on a bench in a park off the highway as I was taking a break from a motorcycle ride.A woman with a flat tire pulled up about 50 ft. from where I was sitting.I just sat there smoking a cigar and decided to say nothing and observe her.After about 5 minutes of watching her trying to figure out what to do she decided that she would change the tire.She took the jack out and couldn’t seem to figure out how it worked.She looked over at me and said…”are you just going to sit there?…or are you going to help me”?…I replied…”You do not need my help….you are a strong independent woman….you don’t need a man …or a man’s help….you can do anything a man can do…..CORRECT?……now get busy and change that tire”?…L* I do not want to repeat what she told me here on Dalrock’s blog…but you know it was not nice.What did I do? I butt out my cigar…got on my bike and said “Good Luck Sweetheart” and rode away. Isn’t chivalry grand??????

  84. @Bluedog:

    Furthermore, the left is extremely feministic and anti family. I’ve had mostly government jobs in my lifetime, and at each the females controlled everything; the dialogue, the promotions, the pecking order.

    What does the left do for men who have families that need to earn a living?? To them it is all about women rights and homosexual rights and darker skinned folks. I say enough of identifying folks by race. Let’s just finally drop the affirmative action and allow folks to compete for jobs and limited positions in universities.

  85. Mark says:

    @Caydius

    “”You only gave your name as Rick. Well I’m pregnant and need you to contact me urgently. Need your medical history. Urgent you contact me quickly to also arrange child support.””

    Absolute Classic!!!!!……….this is the reason I had a vasectomy at age 23(48 now)!…….and never looked back!

  86. Mark says:

    @lagunabeachfogey

    “”How do you account for the single, unmarried chaps motivated to make lots of money by the price of bespoke suits, luxury goods, handmade shoes, sports cars, beautiful women, escorts, and exotic travel””

    I can answer this.You just described myself and my friends…….”Personal Satisfaction”. I was raised in a very wealthy Jewish family so “lack of money” was never an issue. When I got out of university and into the “real world” I wanted to make a lot of money and be a huge success.After a certain age,about 35,you start to see that sitting around counting your money is a little on the boring side…so you adopt an attitude of “Playing The Game”.Your success in the game is measured in dollars! Every new deal or project that is undertaken is done so to enhance “The Game”.Winning at the “Game” brings personal satisfaction.You can only live in so many houses,drive so many exotic cars,etc….etc.Those are material things and quickly lose their luster. It is the spiritual aspect of “Winning at the game” that keeps guys like me working 12 hours days and keeps the inner drive alive.

  87. feeriker says:

    Opus said: The collapsed one was pretty far gone – legs akimbo and looking up at me blankly – and her friend addressed me and asked for my assistance. I replied that as she was a ‘strong empowered woman’ ™ she could do it herself – for which I received a mouthful of abuse. I turned and sauntered off. It is not safe to give assistance to young woman who get into such a state and anyway I do not work for the health service.

    I do hope you also made clear to the two girl-children, especially the besotted one, the part of your statement I bolded. This should be made clear, in as public a manner as possible, to any “ladies” in such a state whenever the scenario you describe arises and they cry out for a rapist, er, man to save them (Judgy Bitch addressed this problem on her blog a week or so ago).

    I would probably also have said “Take a good, long look at me. Am I clad in white armor? No? Then that tells you that I sure as hell ain’t in the damsel rescuin’ business. G’night.”

  88. AzA says:

    This comment is based on several of your essays just as much as this one.

    It is worth thinking about how there are subcultures within America that break this dynamic, and hold on to a more traditional marriage culture. All of them are religious groups. Mormons would provide the best example, but there are others.

    These groups retain a culture of highly-educated, high-earning, hard-working, self-sacrificing, and family-centered men. Exactly the sort that a lot of “modern” feminist women lament that they can’t find anymore.

    Except that they could. All that these would need to do would be be equally religious (which they refuse to do, with the patriarchy and all), and they would need wait for sex and marry these men in their early twenties, with the intention of remaining a loyal and loving wife. None of that would necessarily preclude a career, but it would require a career to be complementary to marriage, and therefore less ambitious, glamorous, and impressive.

    Instead, too many people (men and women) refuse to accept that sacrifices of some things must be made to have other things that matter more. Reality is harsh that way.

  89. Fenton says:

    A hypothesis: men who lose their jobs (and sink to little or no income) are then often divorced, to free up the woman to find someone with more resources. The two statuses are linked not by motivation to work harder, but by female filtering: men with earnings are acceptable to marry, men without earnings are then divorced. I have no data with which to test this, unfortunately.

  90. @ Dalrock and Fenton:

    Dalrock, do you have any data to support Fenton’s assertion that when men lose their incomes, their wives are at that time more apt to divorce them for the purpose of seeking a better financial deal? To me this sounds like it is accurate in some instances, but I am curious to what degree this occurs.

  91. Opus says:

    I wonder whether, at this point my friend’s joke (which has more than a ring of truth) might be worth repeating. It goes as follows: Get a job, and you’ll get a girlfriend.

    He means you will acquire one whether you are actively searching or not – they come like iron filings to a magnet. Of course once you have one you will be motivated to provide, thus we have a self-reinforcing system – rather like perpetual motion.

  92. gman says:

    ““This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important.” –Schopenhauer ”

    (at that time) why should they grow up? they had no rights. they had no power. anything they did could and would be over-ridden by a male. anything they possessed could and would be taken by a male. they had no choice in the matter of children. they had no choice in the matter of marriage. every religion in view sanctified this situation. they were nothing more than barnyard animals who could talk – and if they talked back they would be hit until they stopped talking. of course they remained children, it was the least-painful response to a life of slavery.

  93. Dalrock says:

    @vascularity777

    Dalrock, do you have any data to support Fenton’s assertion that when men lose their incomes, their wives are at that time more apt to divorce them for the purpose of seeking a better financial deal? To me this sounds like it is accurate in some instances, but I am curious to what degree this occurs.

    I don’t have any direct data on that, but I have no doubt that it occurs. Even here though, the pressure on married men to have earnings should be obvious.

    I pulled the table below from this spreadsheet If the formatting is too difficult you can see it from the source. This shows the percent of all men in each age bracket who were in each of the marital status categories listed.

    2012 White alone – Non-Hispanic

    MALE Widowed Divorced Separated Never Married
    .20-24 years 0.1 0.8 1.0 88.8
    .25-29 years 0.1 3.7 1.9 59.3
    .30-34 years 0.1 6.8 1.6 34.8
    .35-39 years 0.4 9.9 2.1 21.8
    .40-44 years 0.2 12.9 2.3 17.7
    .45-49 years 0.7 14.7 3.1 15.7
    .50-54 years 1.2 15.6 1.8 11.1

    If you add the numbers of each row up you get the percent of men in that age bracket who were unmarried. Then if you divide the sum of divorced + separated by he total of each line you can see what percent of the unmarried men in each age bracket were divorced or separated:

    Percent of unmarried men who were divorced or separated
    .20-24 years 2%
    .25-29 years 9%
    .30-34 years 19%
    .35-39 years 35%
    .40-44 years 46%
    .45-49 years 52%
    .50-54 years 59%

    This doesn’t directly answer the question, but it shows how much each bracket could be exposed to the issue.

  94. Dalrock says:

    Another thought on the divorce selection issue. If the man lost his job and his wife divorced him just prior to the year of collection, then this would clearly fit the pattern Fenton described. But I would guess the vast majority of the divorced men in each bracket were divorced for several years prior, especially for the older men (which is where divorce factors in more significantly). This would be the case not just due to random chance, but because of the infrequency of later life divorce. This clouds the issue, because if a man was divorced by his wife when he was say 35, and he is now showing no income at 45, is this a case of selection bias (his wife divorcing a poor earner), or lower motivation to earn since he is no longer married. No doubt both effects are there, but how much of each?

  95. The decreased motivation to earn, in some cases, might also be due to the man attempting to lower his child support payment. In most states child support is derived by a function, which includes the two variables:
    1. The amount of parenting hours.
    2. The amount of income of each parent.

  96. buckyinky says:

    For what it’s worth, just saw this post show up on Big Pulpit, which is sort of a conservative Catholic version of Drudge Report.

  97. Lyn, others, my blog is not listed on Google which is probably why you have trouble finding my Judge Harshly post.

  98. Anonymous age 71 says:

    the real peterman:

    Last time I checked the marriage rate in NZ was already down to 28 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women. The US is in the low 30’s, and UK is down around 18. So, NZ can’t afford to screw up marriage much more.

    @others
    As far as comments about Social Security et al being a transfer payment, there is some truth to this. Of all the benefits paid out, though, Social Security is the only one where the recipients paid in much of it themselves. So of all those who receive benefits, mostly putting in not one read cent, which is the one which bothers you the most? Good job. [/sarcasm]

    Let me add that of the money paid in by recipients over 1 trillion dollars was robbed to give to people who never paid a cent for their transfer payments.Now that it is time to pay it back, your solution is cancel the program and let them all starve. Good job! [/sarcasm]

    By the way, the dearie who assumed some fool whose name she doesn’t know will volunteer to pay c/s, that article on Craigslist was taken down.

    Note to comments about get a job and get a girlfiend (not a spelling error): A fellow worker and I married around the same time in the 60’s or 70’s. We also divorced around the same time. One day he asked me, “Why did our first wives marry us?” I did not field the question very well.

    He told me because we got good jobs. Before that, we had little luck with women and assumed we were just not attractive to women. Once we got a good job, they were interested. Used to being pushed away, we assumed we had found our true loves. We had not. We found our own Hell on earth.

  99. whatever says:


    Let me add that of the money paid in by recipients over 1 trillion dollars was robbed to give to people who never paid a cent for their transfer payments.Now that it is time to pay it back, your solution is cancel the program and let them all starve. Good job! [/sarcasm]

    Are you referring to the rich people or to the military? Maybe the oldsters could stop screaming about how the rich and the military need more money, how the youngn need less, and how the young’n need to pay for all of this if they expect any sympathy.

    Not the the young aren’t, for some unknowable reason, extremely sympathetic to oldster scum.

  100. As far as comments about Social Security et al being a transfer payment, there is some truth to this. Of all the benefits paid out, though, Social Security is the only one where the recipients paid in much of it themselves.

    Nope. Social Security is managed 100% on a cash-flow basis. That means every dime of benefits paid out in a given year comes from what others pay in that very same year. There is not “some truth” to it being a transfer payment; it is an entirely factual description of what happens. An oldster is not getting back money he put it. He is merely being paid by younger people. Bernie Madoff ran a similar system, but he ran out of new enrollees.

    Let me add that of the money paid in by recipients over 1 trillion dollars was robbed to give to people who never paid a cent for their transfer payments.

    You’re referring to people who retired in the 1930s and 40s.. Nearly all those people are dead now. The money was not “robbed;” anyone with a little time and a brain could have found out that’s exactly how the scheme worked.

    Now that it is time to pay it back, your solution is cancel the program and let them all starve.

    The Social Security Act was passed in 1935. Not only was I not alive then, but neither were my parents, and my grandparents were too young to vote. I feel absolutely zero moral obligation to pay out some portion of my income that previous generations voted to themselves. The answer as to what should be done about some elderly stranger who spent his whole life voting for expansions to Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that deliver my paycheck to him, is “I don’t give a crap. Maybe he should have saved for his retirement instead of voting for it.”

    I will, of course, take care of my immediate family as they age. But I literally do not care if elderly strangers die in the cold because they were irresponsible and have neither children nor savings. I feel no sympathy for people who were planning on confiscating my pay when they got too old to earn their own.

  101. They Call Me Tom says:

    I think the future of this country, on it’s present course…. is to have an economy that’s 20% legal and 80% illegal. One of these days I’ll figure out how to be part of that 80% before it’s at 80%. All social services are for the profit of the middle man… the middle man being the inept bumblers of the bureaucratic state… those bumblers will be out on the streets when they can only leech off of 20% of the economy, considering that they’re only now getting by living off of 200% of the economy.

  102. They Call Me Tom says:

    p.s. Any good man should be aspiring to never take a social security check, to not continue in the generational theft established by the government as means to collect more taxes of the citizen’s income.

    Ending social security would be the noble thing for senior citizens to support. Instead, they know themselves victims of a crime, and find the solution to become themselves complicit in the crime. Sure, some can’t help but steal, because social security has stolen what fruits of their labor that they might live off of now. But the senior citizens collecting social security checks when they don’t need to? Scoundrels and thieves and nothing more honorable than that.

  103. Luke says:

    Fearsome Pirate said:

    “I will, of course, take care of my immediate family as they age. But I literally do not care if elderly strangers die in the cold because they were irresponsible and have neither children nor savings. I feel no sympathy for people who were planning on confiscating my pay when they got too old to earn their own”

    Applause from me. I periodically tell age-barren childless careerist spinsters that if they’re expecting my children to pay their Social Security and pensions, they’ll be very disappointed. (Saying “But — but — but my neighbor/2nd cousin/former coworker had kids” (so they didn’t need to)is IMO akin to telling the IRS on April 15th that since someone else paid taxes, you don’t need to.

  104. Social Security for spinsters is like the reverse of the societal cuckolding known as welfare, where the woman gets the government to force men she’s never met to pay for the upkeep of children that aren’t theirs. In Social Security, elderly women get the government to force children they had no interest in having to support her in her old age.

  105. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/24 | Free Northerner

  106. Pingback: Fenton’s hypothesis. | Dalrock

  107. Zenu says:

    After reading all the comments on this site and other Men’s Rights sites I am so glad I am single/ never married and unattached- most- not all- women must be the most vile creatures on the face of the planet- anyone who marries a female is insane.

  108. Pingback: Good stuff. | Dalrock

  109. Pingback: Fear to greed. | Dalrock

  110. Farm Boy says:

    If a young woman has anything going for her, she can be married to a fine enough guy straightaway. Young women have all of the power; they could easily use it to do this.

    It is because they do not want to.

  111. Pingback: Progress | Dalrock

  112. Pingback: Lady economists in the Feminist Fauxtopia in Abilene will earn a lot more than the gentlemen economists do. | Sunshine Mary

  113. Pingback: Where have all the good earners gone? | Dalrock

  114. tsotha says:

    What we are seeing at the extremes is married men doing whatever it takes to succeed in a terrible economy, while the results for unmarried men are similar to that of women.

    Or maybe it’s just that women are most interested in marrying men with a high earning potential.

  115. Pingback: Getting to the church on time (a second time). | Dalrock

  116. Pingback: The benefits and downsides of rump patriarchy | The Practical Conservative

  117. Pingback: Of Madonnas and Whores | Atavisionary

  118. Pingback: Single men with jobs are becoming a scarce commodity. | Dalrock

  119. Pingback: Links: Service, evil, math, writing, death, David Fincher, and more | The Story's Story

  120. Pingback: Fewer men are working, and marriage is dying. | Dalrock

  121. Pingback: The unworkable bachelor tax. | Dalrock

  122. Pingback: Make men pay! Because they might not. | Observing the Decline

  123. Pingback: Shrug | Atavisionary

  124. Pingback: Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable. | Dalrock

  125. Pingback: “Be Better” She Says | Spawny's Space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s