A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

On divorce Statistics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 25th 03, 03:56 PM
Virginia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics

http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/7m2/7m2046.html

  #2  
Old June 27th 03, 05:40 AM
Brad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics

Virginia" wrote in message
...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/7m2/7m2046.html


This article is pretty old, if that means anything.

The author's understanding and/or manipulation of statistics leaves a bit to
be desired. His definition of the "divorce rate" as the percentage of all
existing marriages that end in divorce each year is moronic. The true rate
is reflected in his quote:

"If you look at all marriages that took place last year, about 45 to 50
percent will eventually end in divorce."

He tries to minimize the significance of that percentage, but it's the only
one that matters. His own definition is meaningless, because, as the
population increases, the pool of existing marriages will grow larger, and
"his" divorce rate could eventually approach 0%, even as 50% or more of each
year's new marriages eventually end in divorce.

Brad


  #3  
Old June 27th 03, 06:22 PM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics

"Brad" wrote in message
.. .
Virginia" wrote in message

...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/7m2/7m2046.html


This article is pretty old, if that means anything.

The author's understanding and/or manipulation of statistics leaves a bit

to
be desired. His definition of the "divorce rate" as the percentage of all
existing marriages that end in divorce each year is moronic. The true

rate
is reflected in his quote:

"If you look at all marriages that took place last year, about 45 to 50
percent will eventually end in divorce."

He tries to minimize the significance of that percentage, but it's the

only
one that matters. His own definition is meaningless, because, as the
population increases, the pool of existing marriages will grow larger, and
"his" divorce rate could eventually approach 0%, even as 50% or more of

each
year's new marriages eventually end in divorce.



If I had the time I would pull up some stats on this subject. What the
author stated in the article aligns with the raw data from the census. More
than 70% of first-time* marriages will remain intact. The actual divorce
rate for those first-time marriages is closer to 25%, not 50%. The reason
why we have such a high divorce rate is due to those who remarry and divorce
repeatedly. In other words, the more a person remarries, the more likely
they'll divorce... hence skewing the overall divorce rate.

* first-time marriages are between couples who have never been married
before, and this marriage is their first.

Bottom-line: we need better reports on divorce rates.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



  #4  
Old June 27th 03, 10:11 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics


"Tracy" wrote in message
news:GT0La.36714$XG4.24347@rwcrnsc53...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Virginia" wrote in message
...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/7m2/7m2046.html



The U.S. Census report shows more detail than anyone ever wanted to know
about marriage and divorce rates by age, gender, ethnicity, year of
marriage, length of marriage, etc.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf

Take a look at Table 11 which projects out probability of events

occurring
during the lifetime of first marriages. It shows that younger people

will
have a significantly higher divorce rate than people who are older. The
projected divorce rate for men age 25 is 53%, and for women age 25 is

52%.
The divorce rate for people a few years older than 25 has been projected

to
be right around the 50% rate commonly cited.



Before taking that table at face value to be the gospel - I highly suggest
you read through "Nearly half of recent first marriages may end in

divorce."
section. It clearly states the report *assumes* a divorce rate of 50% and
projects the divorce rates for those age groups accordingly. Read the

last
paragraph on page 18. It states there is no data currently available show

a
historical marriage cohort where the percent divorce from first marriage

was
as 50 percent, although it has approached this level. This report sampled
only 37,000 households.


I'm sure you will agree all census data has to be considered the best data
we have, even though it may not fit every situation exactly and it is a
snapshot reflecting current information. In that same section you cited
above, the report discusses that 1975 divorce rates were projected, using
the same methodolgy, to be about 33% for 25-35 year old marriage partners,
but as that group aged to become the 45-55 year old age group the actual
divorce rate came in at 40%.

Another important factor I have thought about is the marriage rate for
blacks is much lower than for whites. The fact that fewer balcks marry will
have a tendency to hold down the divorce rate for that ethnic group becasue
when blacks leave their non-marital partners they do it without actually
getting a divorce.


Another thing which I don't like is the table showing the anniversaries.

It
leaves out those whose marriages ended due to death. Sure, an anniversary
doesn't happen, but it is misleading when you say that 29.2% of men

married
won't see their 40th wedding anniversary. Why? Because some of that

29.2%
of "ended" marriages, ended due to death.


You are right. And that is most likely the reason behind the census data
showing more men getting divorces than women in both raw numbers and
percentages. Table 8 does show marriage related events like separations,
divorces, and widowhood. There is a huge surprise on that table. For 25-44
year old respondents 7.1% of men are widowed and 5.6% of women are widowed.
I would have thought those numbers should be reversed. Do you think that is
the age category where husbands kill their wives? :-))

bottom-line: I don't care for how they are assuming and projecting.


That's fair. I just posted the census data so some factual impute could be
included in case this thread moves forward.


  #5  
Old June 28th 03, 01:02 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics


"Tracy" wrote in message
news:Le3La.37274$3d.20338@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:GT0La.36714$XG4.24347@rwcrnsc53...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Virginia" wrote in message
...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/7m2/7m2046.html



The U.S. Census report shows more detail than anyone ever wanted to

know
about marriage and divorce rates by age, gender, ethnicity, year of
marriage, length of marriage, etc.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf

Take a look at Table 11 which projects out probability of events

occurring
during the lifetime of first marriages. It shows that younger

people
will
have a significantly higher divorce rate than people who are older.

The
projected divorce rate for men age 25 is 53%, and for women age 25

is
52%.
The divorce rate for people a few years older than 25 has been

projected
to
be right around the 50% rate commonly cited.


Before taking that table at face value to be the gospel - I highly

suggest
you read through "Nearly half of recent first marriages may end in

divorce."
section. It clearly states the report *assumes* a divorce rate of 50%

and
projects the divorce rates for those age groups accordingly. Read the

last
paragraph on page 18. It states there is no data currently available

show
a
historical marriage cohort where the percent divorce from first

marriage
was
as 50 percent, although it has approached this level. This report

sampled
only 37,000 households.


I'm sure you will agree all census data has to be considered the best

data
we have,


The assumption did not come from census data. It came from NCHS (National
Center for Health Statistics), which found that 43% of first marriages end
in separation or divorce within 15 years.


Where I come from 43% fits the definition of "approaching 50%." And if the
NCHS report were to extend beyond their 15 year anniversary cut-off point
the divorce rate would get even closer to 50%.

Note the "separation". In other
words, they are assuming a 50% divorce rate from a stat which isn't

limited
to *just* divorce, but including separation. You should agree that
separation does not equal divorce.


I'm not trying to defend the census, but it seems logical to add divorces
and separations, which represent divorces in progress, into a result that
shows how the combination of these two events work together to accurately
reflect how many marrriages are ending.

Also, the NCHS's figure is based on a
sampling of *women* ranging in age from 15 to 44 in 1995. (see page 17 in
#17 notes) Come on now! You should agree that a child aged 15 who is
separated from her husband is probably separated due to her choices of
husband's. The notes continue to state that the data for the NCHS report
and Census report were collected using different methodologies.

Personally
I feel there are many reasons to see the data as being wrong... and the
final conclusion invalid. It is not a fair representation.


The report acknowledges the SIPP process used by the census bureau results
in lower divorce rates than the NCHC. If anything, that means the census
underreports divorces.


Further... the report is dated 1996. The NCHS data is from 1900 (see page
2, note 3). Note 4 on page 2 states "Since the data used in this analysis
are taken from retrospective surveys, they may not accurately reflect past
marital events occurring decades before the interview date due to the
respondent's inability to recall events...... the estimates have bias."
Bob - hello! Can we say null and void?


Actually the census report is dated 2002 and is the most recent report
issued. It is based on 1996 data. The 2001 NCHC report was based on 1995
data.


I don't know what they are trying to prove in this report, but the report
also states that women tend to live in poverty after divorce and men

don't!
Do we need another report which poorly gathered data to reflect something
which is probably not reality? Sure their statement that 50% of first
marriages *may* end in divorce is accurate since it includes the word

"may".
My statement, "it MAY rain tomorrow" is valid since I didn't say it would.


I think the point they were trying to make is there is a fairly close
coorelation between the data collected by NCHC in 1995 and census data
collected in 1996. And minor variations between the two data sources are
based on how the questions were aksed and the data was collected and
assembled into tables.


Sorry - but my next marriage will not end in divorce. Divorce is not an
option; I won't cheat; he won't cheat; and neither of us will strike the
other. There won't be a real reason for divorce. There isn't a "50%
chance" of anything.

The only thing those reports tell me is that there is a huge group of

people
with the wrong attitude towards marriage and their life-long commitments.
It is time for an attitude adjustment.


even though it may not fit every situation exactly and it is a
snapshot reflecting current information. In that same section you cited
above, the report discusses that 1975 divorce rates were projected,

using
the same methodolgy, to be about 33% for 25-35 year old marriage

partners,
but as that group aged to become the 45-55 year old age group the actual
divorce rate came in at 40%.


sure - but once again it is a small sample compared to the larger picture.


I cannot find any information in the census to show how many people were
actually surveyed. At one point they show marriage and divorce statistics
based on up 106 million marriages. At another point the statisitcs are
based on 2.3 million marraiges. My guess would be they sampled 2.3 million
and used some sort of sampling projection formula to get the numbers up to
106 million.



Another important factor I have thought about is the marriage rate for
blacks is much lower than for whites. The fact that fewer balcks marry

will
have a tendency to hold down the divorce rate for that ethnic group

becasue
when blacks leave their non-marital partners they do it without actually
getting a divorce.


Sure, plus other factors like education, household income, *religion*,

plus
many others which impacts that rate. If I remember correctly, the article
the OP listed was from a religious web-site. I do believe the "divorce
rate" is lower in households which support religion within their homes.


I would assume the same thing, but the census and NCHC do not report on that
factor.



Another thing which I don't like is the table showing the

anniversaries.
It
leaves out those whose marriages ended due to death. Sure, an

anniversary
doesn't happen, but it is misleading when you say that 29.2% of men

married
won't see their 40th wedding anniversary. Why? Because some of that

29.2%
of "ended" marriages, ended due to death.


You are right.


I would like to point out something... how can 70.8% of married males be
celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary if their chances of divorce are
50%? Don't you find that a tad bit conflicting? The 70.8% figure aligns
more with the article the OP posted.


The answer lies in percents of what numbers. The divorce rate of 50% is
based on all marriages for all lengths of marriages. The 70.8% figure is
based on how many marriages lasted to the 40th anniversary. That makes
sense. People who reach their 40th anniversary are more than likely around
65 years old. The divorce rate for these older couples is much lower than
those for younger couples.


And that is most likely the reason behind the census data
showing more men getting divorces than women in both raw numbers and
percentages. Table 8 does show marriage related events like

separations,
divorces, and widowhood. There is a huge surprise on that table. For

25-44
year old respondents 7.1% of men are widowed and 5.6% of women are

widowed.
I would have thought those numbers should be reversed. Do you think

that
is
the age category where husbands kill their wives? :-))


I don't know if it is murder that is causing the larger percentage, or
perhaps natural causes like cancer, heart disease, or even diseases

relating
to eating habits (diabetes & anorexia). I have seven years to reach 44

and
right now I have two doctors very concerned over my health. If I marry
before I turn 44, and die before 44, does that mean he killed me or did

was
it medical problems? I prefer to think that the vast majority of those

men
are widowed due to their wives being ill.


Hope your health gets better. The widow rate just surprised me considering
men in general have more risky jobs and tend to die a lot younger than
women.



bottom-line: I don't care for how they are assuming and projecting.


That's fair. I just posted the census data so some factual impute could

be
included in case this thread moves forward.


it is a mix between several sources, which is part of the problem. I

think
we should stick to the Catholic church. LOL


What does the Catholic Church say the divorce rate is within the church and
outside the church?


  #6  
Old June 28th 03, 02:18 AM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:Le3La.37274$3d.20338@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...


The assumption did not come from census data. It came from NCHS

(National
Center for Health Statistics), which found that 43% of first marriages

end
in separation or divorce within 15 years.


Where I come from 43% fits the definition of "approaching 50%."


Not where I come from. Perhaps I'm more analytical and use to analyzing
series of numbers. There several factors which should be present to make a
statement that some number is approaching another number. 43% is no where
close to, nor does it imply it is approaching, 50%. I consider what they
are reporting as funny figures. No different than some accountant skewing
the books and reporting out false financial information. Would you continue
to invest money into a company which reports out their Earnings Estimate as
approaching 0.50 when it is actually 0.43? Personally I would question the
company's ability to provide legit information to their stock holders, and
not invest in them.


And if the
NCHS report were to extend beyond their 15 year anniversary cut-off point
the divorce rate would get even closer to 50%.


maybe, maybe not. The 50% figure is a projection - there is no data
supporting that figure. I posted another article, which can be located at
the census site, that clearly stated that there is no data suggesting that
the 50% figure is correct. In other words, it hasn't happened yet, but
there are suggesting it will. Ok, I'm not sure how many people will agree
with me - but if you continuously express to the general public that
something *will* happen, then the general public will make it happen.
Therefore - let's all beat up on marriages and just accept the fact we'll
have a 50% divorce rate (hasn't happened yet), and it will happen. Do you
follow me on this?



Note the "separation". In other
words, they are assuming a 50% divorce rate from a stat which isn't

limited
to *just* divorce, but including separation. You should agree that
separation does not equal divorce.


I'm not trying to defend the census, but it seems logical to add divorces
and separations, which represent divorces in progress, into a result that
shows how the combination of these two events work together to accurately
reflect how many marrriages are ending.


I disagree in adding separations into divorces. When the couple actually
divorces, is the divorce being counted twice because they are using multiple
sources which is not gathering data the same way? These are questions you
should be asking.


Further... the report is dated 1996. The NCHS data is from 1900 (see

page
2, note 3). Note 4 on page 2 states "Since the data used in this

analysis
are taken from retrospective surveys, they may not accurately reflect

past
marital events occurring decades before the interview date due to the
respondent's inability to recall events...... the estimates have bias."
Bob - hello! Can we say null and void?


Actually the census report is dated 2002 and is the most recent report
issued. It is based on 1996 data. The 2001 NCHC report was based on 1995
data.


On page 2 is states the data is from 1990. Which page did you see the 1995
date?


even though it may not fit every situation exactly and it is a
snapshot reflecting current information. In that same section you

cited
above, the report discusses that 1975 divorce rates were projected,

using
the same methodolgy, to be about 33% for 25-35 year old marriage

partners,
but as that group aged to become the 45-55 year old age group the

actual
divorce rate came in at 40%.


sure - but once again it is a small sample compared to the larger

picture.

I cannot find any information in the census to show how many people were
actually surveyed. At one point they show marriage and divorce statistics
based on up 106 million marriages. At another point the statisitcs are
based on 2.3 million marraiges. My guess would be they sampled 2.3

million
and used some sort of sampling projection formula to get the numbers up to
106 million.


The number of people & households in the sample is on page 2 in the purple
box under "Marital History".


Another thing which I don't like is the table showing the

anniversaries.
It
leaves out those whose marriages ended due to death. Sure, an

anniversary
doesn't happen, but it is misleading when you say that 29.2% of men
married
won't see their 40th wedding anniversary. Why? Because some of

that
29.2%
of "ended" marriages, ended due to death.

You are right.


I would like to point out something... how can 70.8% of married males be
celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary if their chances of divorce

are
50%? Don't you find that a tad bit conflicting? The 70.8% figure

aligns
more with the article the OP posted.


The answer lies in percents of what numbers. The divorce rate of 50% is
based on all marriages for all lengths of marriages. The 70.8% figure is
based on how many marriages lasted to the 40th anniversary. That makes
sense. People who reach their 40th anniversary are more than likely

around
65 years old. The divorce rate for these older couples is much lower than
those for younger couples.


They are assuming the projected divorce rate of 50%. There is no data
supporting that figure. They have using that figure to establish the rate
someone (anyone at any age) will divorce. Read through the report. It
doesn't matter if I marry before I'm 38. My "chances" of divorce will
remain 50%, because it is a marriage. Their statements don't include age
groups. Their statements are general statements which applies to all
marriages. The general claim is that 50% of marriages will end in divorce.


And that is most likely the reason behind the census data
showing more men getting divorces than women in both raw numbers and
percentages. Table 8 does show marriage related events like

separations,
divorces, and widowhood. There is a huge surprise on that table. For

25-44
year old respondents 7.1% of men are widowed and 5.6% of women are

widowed.
I would have thought those numbers should be reversed. Do you think

that
is
the age category where husbands kill their wives? :-))


I don't know if it is murder that is causing the larger percentage, or
perhaps natural causes like cancer, heart disease, or even diseases

relating
to eating habits (diabetes & anorexia). I have seven years to reach 44

and
right now I have two doctors very concerned over my health. If I marry
before I turn 44, and die before 44, does that mean he killed me or did

was
it medical problems? I prefer to think that the vast majority of those

men
are widowed due to their wives being ill.


Hope your health gets better.


I'll know more during the afternoon of July 3rd. My changes of major
surgery is well above 50% right now. Considering I've had only one good
year since '99, I'm wanting this to just end, and I've had a tubal, I know
my doctor is going to suggest a complete hysterectomy. I'm just not
comfortable with the idea for two reasons.... 1) I'm facing major surgery to
remove body parts to help "save" my life (treatment). 2) the impact it will
have to my sex life.


The widow rate just surprised me considering
men in general have more risky jobs and tend to die a lot younger than
women.


Most men will live beyond the age of 44. I would agree with you if we were
talking about men & women 60 years old and older.



bottom-line: I don't care for how they are assuming and projecting.

That's fair. I just posted the census data so some factual impute

could
be
included in case this thread moves forward.


it is a mix between several sources, which is part of the problem. I

think
we should stick to the Catholic church. LOL


What does the Catholic Church say the divorce rate is within the church

and
outside the church?


I don't know. I'm not Catholic. I attend Non-Denominational and Assemblies
of God Churches. I just threw that out to be a smart ass. I have to run
off for the weekend, if not longer. I'll be taking off for McMinnville
tonight, then spending part of my day tomorrow in Salem for a baby shower
(my cousin's 17 yo daughter), then my house for a short period of time, then
Molalla to meet the parents, then back home just to rest up for Church
Sunday. I just thought I would throw out my thoughts today since I don't
know when I'll get another chance - too much on my mind lately...


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



  #7  
Old June 28th 03, 04:09 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics


"Tracy" wrote in message
news:416La.38255$Ab2.63882@sccrnsc01...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:Le3La.37274$3d.20338@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...


The assumption did not come from census data. It came from NCHS

(National
Center for Health Statistics), which found that 43% of first marriages

end
in separation or divorce within 15 years.


Where I come from 43% fits the definition of "approaching 50%."


Not where I come from. Perhaps I'm more analytical and use to analyzing
series of numbers. There several factors which should be present to make

a
statement that some number is approaching another number. 43% is no where
close to, nor does it imply it is approaching, 50%. I consider what they
are reporting as funny figures. No different than some accountant skewing
the books and reporting out false financial information. Would you

continue
to invest money into a company which reports out their Earnings Estimate

as
approaching 0.50 when it is actually 0.43? Personally I would question

the
company's ability to provide legit information to their stock holders, and
not invest in them.


Normally I wouldn't make a big deal out of this but when you posted:

"If I had the time I would pull up some stats on this subject. What the
author stated in the article aligns with the raw data from the census. More
than 70% of first-time* marriages will remain intact. The actual divorce
rate for those first-time marriages is closer to 25%, not 50%."

Just explain for all of us how the 43% census report divorce rate, which you
now acknowledge is factual, is closer to 25% than it is to 50%. What am I
missing about your ability to "analyze a series of numbers" and make claims
based on your skills that 25 is closer to 43, than 43 is to 50?


And if the
NCHS report were to extend beyond their 15 year anniversary cut-off

point
the divorce rate would get even closer to 50%.


maybe, maybe not. The 50% figure is a projection - there is no data
supporting that figure. I posted another article, which can be located at
the census site, that clearly stated that there is no data suggesting that
the 50% figure is correct. In other words, it hasn't happened yet, but
there are suggesting it will. Ok, I'm not sure how many people will agree
with me - but if you continuously express to the general public that
something *will* happen, then the general public will make it happen.
Therefore - let's all beat up on marriages and just accept the fact we'll
have a 50% divorce rate (hasn't happened yet), and it will happen. Do you
follow me on this?


If the census report cannot publish a definitive weighted average on the
divorce rate that you like, and instead publishes a projected average, why
are you so eager to accept the NCHS weighted average based on more
restricted data that limits the term of marriages?




Note the "separation". In other
words, they are assuming a 50% divorce rate from a stat which isn't

limited
to *just* divorce, but including separation. You should agree that
separation does not equal divorce.


I'm not trying to defend the census, but it seems logical to add

divorces
and separations, which represent divorces in progress, into a result

that
shows how the combination of these two events work together to

accurately
reflect how many marrriages are ending.


I disagree in adding separations into divorces. When the couple actually
divorces, is the divorce being counted twice because they are using

multiple
sources which is not gathering data the same way? These are questions you
should be asking.


Yeah, like if the reporting categories are for 5 year spans, is it
reasonable to combine divorces and separations when the average separation
to divorce is accomplished in less than 2 years.



Further... the report is dated 1996. The NCHS data is from 1900 (see

page
2, note 3). Note 4 on page 2 states "Since the data used in this

analysis
are taken from retrospective surveys, they may not accurately reflect

past
marital events occurring decades before the interview date due to the
respondent's inability to recall events...... the estimates have

bias."
Bob - hello! Can we say null and void?


Actually the census report is dated 2002 and is the most recent report
issued. It is based on 1996 data. The 2001 NCHC report was based on

1995
data.


On page 2 is states the data is from 1990. Which page did you see the

1995
date?


I can't find it right now, but the NCHS base data you seem to like was
collected in 1990 and then re-projected to 1995 for the 1996 report. If the
census projections are no good, why are the NCHS projections on older data
more valid?



even though it may not fit every situation exactly and it is a
snapshot reflecting current information. In that same section you

cited
above, the report discusses that 1975 divorce rates were projected,

using
the same methodolgy, to be about 33% for 25-35 year old marriage

partners,
but as that group aged to become the 45-55 year old age group the

actual
divorce rate came in at 40%.

sure - but once again it is a small sample compared to the larger

picture.

I cannot find any information in the census to show how many people were
actually surveyed. At one point they show marriage and divorce

statistics
based on up 106 million marriages. At another point the statisitcs are
based on 2.3 million marraiges. My guess would be they sampled 2.3

million
and used some sort of sampling projection formula to get the numbers up

to
106 million.


The number of people & households in the sample is on page 2 in the purple
box under "Marital History".


Thank you. Close to 70,000 individual interviews sounds like a fairly
sizable sample to me. Statistical sampling projections would take into
account the size of the sample and adjust for plus or minus variables, a
process discussed at the end of the report.



Another thing which I don't like is the table showing the

anniversaries.
It
leaves out those whose marriages ended due to death. Sure, an
anniversary
doesn't happen, but it is misleading when you say that 29.2% of

men
married
won't see their 40th wedding anniversary. Why? Because some of

that
29.2%
of "ended" marriages, ended due to death.

You are right.

I would like to point out something... how can 70.8% of married males

be
celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary if their chances of divorce

are
50%? Don't you find that a tad bit conflicting? The 70.8% figure

aligns
more with the article the OP posted.


The answer lies in percents of what numbers. The divorce rate of 50% is
based on all marriages for all lengths of marriages. The 70.8% figure

is
based on how many marriages lasted to the 40th anniversary. That makes
sense. People who reach their 40th anniversary are more than likely

around
65 years old. The divorce rate for these older couples is much lower

than
those for younger couples.


They are assuming the projected divorce rate of 50%. There is no data
supporting that figure. They have using that figure to establish the rate
someone (anyone at any age) will divorce. Read through the report. It
doesn't matter if I marry before I'm 38. My "chances" of divorce will
remain 50%, because it is a marriage. Their statements don't include age
groups. Their statements are general statements which applies to all
marriages. The general claim is that 50% of marriages will end in

divorce.

If I understand your personal situation correctly, the first marriage
statistics don't apply to you. Look at the second marrriage statisitcs
which are less favorable regarding divorce rates.



And that is most likely the reason behind the census data
showing more men getting divorces than women in both raw numbers and
percentages. Table 8 does show marriage related events like

separations,
divorces, and widowhood. There is a huge surprise on that table.

For
25-44
year old respondents 7.1% of men are widowed and 5.6% of women are
widowed.
I would have thought those numbers should be reversed. Do you think

that
is
the age category where husbands kill their wives? :-))

I don't know if it is murder that is causing the larger percentage, or
perhaps natural causes like cancer, heart disease, or even diseases

relating
to eating habits (diabetes & anorexia). I have seven years to reach

44
and
right now I have two doctors very concerned over my health. If I

marry
before I turn 44, and die before 44, does that mean he killed me or

did
was
it medical problems? I prefer to think that the vast majority of

those
men
are widowed due to their wives being ill.


Hope your health gets better.


I'll know more during the afternoon of July 3rd. My changes of major
surgery is well above 50% right now. Considering I've had only one good
year since '99, I'm wanting this to just end, and I've had a tubal, I know
my doctor is going to suggest a complete hysterectomy. I'm just not
comfortable with the idea for two reasons.... 1) I'm facing major surgery

to
remove body parts to help "save" my life (treatment). 2) the impact it

will
have to my sex life.



My only female cousin had a hysterectomy in her early 20's before her first
marriage. The marriage didn't last long. Then she married another man and
that marriage ended too. A couple of months ago she re-married husband #2
so maybe all the fears about what men will think about your sex drive are
not so important.



The widow rate just surprised me considering
men in general have more risky jobs and tend to die a lot younger than
women.


Most men will live beyond the age of 44. I would agree with you if we

were
talking about men & women 60 years old and older.


Tracy - Men die in wars. Men die on the job. Men die commuting longer
distances to work. Men die while traveling on business. Women live longer
and every insurance company sets their actuary tables based on women's
longer life span. The census shows more married men up to age 44 are
widowed than married women up to age 44. That is an unusual statistic.




bottom-line: I don't care for how they are assuming and

projecting.

That's fair. I just posted the census data so some factual impute

could
be
included in case this thread moves forward.

it is a mix between several sources, which is part of the problem. I

think
we should stick to the Catholic church. LOL


What does the Catholic Church say the divorce rate is within the church

and
outside the church?


I don't know. I'm not Catholic. I attend Non-Denominational and

Assemblies
of God Churches. I just threw that out to be a smart ass. I have to run
off for the weekend, if not longer. I'll be taking off for McMinnville
tonight, then spending part of my day tomorrow in Salem for a baby shower
(my cousin's 17 yo daughter), then my house for a short period of time,

then
Molalla to meet the parents, then back home just to rest up for Church
Sunday. I just thought I would throw out my thoughts today since I don't
know when I'll get another chance - too much on my mind lately...


A simple "I don't know I was bluffing" would work.


  #8  
Old July 2nd 03, 02:37 AM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:416La.38255$Ab2.63882@sccrnsc01...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:Le3La.37274$3d.20338@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...


The assumption did not come from census data. It came from NCHS

(National
Center for Health Statistics), which found that 43% of first

marriages
end
in separation or divorce within 15 years.

Where I come from 43% fits the definition of "approaching 50%."


Not where I come from. Perhaps I'm more analytical and use to analyzing
series of numbers. There several factors which should be present to

make
a
statement that some number is approaching another number. 43% is no

where
close to, nor does it imply it is approaching, 50%. I consider what

they
are reporting as funny figures. No different than some accountant

skewing
the books and reporting out false financial information. Would you

continue
to invest money into a company which reports out their Earnings Estimate

as
approaching 0.50 when it is actually 0.43? Personally I would question

the
company's ability to provide legit information to their stock holders,

and
not invest in them.


Normally I wouldn't make a big deal out of this but when you posted:

"If I had the time I would pull up some stats on this subject. What the
author stated in the article aligns with the raw data from the census.

More
than 70% of first-time* marriages will remain intact. The actual divorce
rate for those first-time marriages is closer to 25%, not 50%."

Just explain for all of us how the 43% census report divorce rate, which

you
now acknowledge is factual, is closer to 25% than it is to 50%. What am I
missing about your ability to "analyze a series of numbers" and make

claims
based on your skills that 25 is closer to 43, than 43 is to 50?


Show me where I ever claimed 43% is closer to 25% than it is to 50%. I'm
not sure why you have now decided to go this route of making false claims
concerning anything I wrote in this thread. Yes, I wrote what you quoted
above, but I did not associate anything I wrote above with the link YOU
posted. So why are you making such a big deal? I am curious. I have not
attacked you, or said anything negative towards you. But you came back with
some slams in this reply - starting with the false claim above. My ability
to analyze numbers is fine - Bob. My ability to respond in this group is
just fine too, and no where did I make the claim you claimed I did.

As far as what I've stated to *Brad* - Paul Fritz made a similar statement a
couple of years *before* you joined this group. I spent some time trying to
locate the article which I vaguely remember. Ironically the closest I came
was a statement by Paul Fritz that the divorce rate is closer to 25%, and
not the 50% the feds would like us to believe. After all - in who's best
interest is it to mislead the general public in accepting the failures in
their own marriages, if not others? Have you ever asked yourself that
question? I have... the power of persuasion through pure BS... that is the
government at its finest - is it not?



even though it may not fit every situation exactly and it is a
snapshot reflecting current information. In that same section you

cited
above, the report discusses that 1975 divorce rates were

projected,
using
the same methodolgy, to be about 33% for 25-35 year old marriage
partners,
but as that group aged to become the 45-55 year old age group the

actual
divorce rate came in at 40%.

sure - but once again it is a small sample compared to the larger

picture.

I cannot find any information in the census to show how many people

were
actually surveyed. At one point they show marriage and divorce

statistics
based on up 106 million marriages. At another point the statisitcs

are
based on 2.3 million marraiges. My guess would be they sampled 2.3

million
and used some sort of sampling projection formula to get the numbers

up
to
106 million.


The number of people & households in the sample is on page 2 in the

purple
box under "Marital History".


Thank you. Close to 70,000 individual interviews sounds like a fairly
sizable sample to me. Statistical sampling projections would take into
account the size of the sample and adjust for plus or minus variables, a
process discussed at the end of the report.


I find that 37,000 *households* a small number in comparison to the whole
picture - but I'm sure you'll disagree. After all - why sit there and
believe any marriage has a chance. Let's all make all believe their
marriages don't stand much of a chance, when in fact the *real* divorce rate
has been declining. Do you know what the real divorce rate is?



They are assuming the projected divorce rate of 50%. There is no data
supporting that figure. They have using that figure to establish the

rate
someone (anyone at any age) will divorce. Read through the report. It
doesn't matter if I marry before I'm 38. My "chances" of divorce will
remain 50%, because it is a marriage. Their statements don't include

age
groups. Their statements are general statements which applies to all
marriages. The general claim is that 50% of marriages will end in

divorce.

If I understand your personal situation correctly, the first marriage
statistics don't apply to you. Look at the second marrriage statisitcs
which are less favorable regarding divorce rates.


Bob, first marriage statistics do apply to me. After all, I was older than
15 and all these reports are reporting figures for those 15 and older. I
tend to not think of my first marriage as a real marriage for several
reasons. My next one will be a real marriage, and it will last 'til death.



I'll know more during the afternoon of July 3rd. My changes of major
surgery is well above 50% right now. Considering I've had only one good
year since '99, I'm wanting this to just end, and I've had a tubal, I

know
my doctor is going to suggest a complete hysterectomy. I'm just not
comfortable with the idea for two reasons.... 1) I'm facing major

surgery
to
remove body parts to help "save" my life (treatment). 2) the impact it

will
have to my sex life.



My only female cousin had a hysterectomy in her early 20's before her

first
marriage. The marriage didn't last long. Then she married another man

and
that marriage ended too. A couple of months ago she re-married husband #2
so maybe all the fears about what men will think about your sex drive are
not so important.


If you really *need* to know - it has NOTHING to do with my drive. I know
that will be okay. It is my ability to have a real orgasm... after all the
organ which helps cause it will be gone. Its like removing a man's penis
and telling him he can still have an orgasm.



The widow rate just surprised me considering
men in general have more risky jobs and tend to die a lot younger than
women.


Most men will live beyond the age of 44. I would agree with you if we

were
talking about men & women 60 years old and older.


Tracy - Men die in wars. Men die on the job. Men die commuting longer
distances to work. Men die while traveling on business. Women live

longer
and every insurance company sets their actuary tables based on women's
longer life span. The census shows more married men up to age 44 are
widowed than married women up to age 44. That is an unusual statistic.


So, and your point?


bottom-line: I don't care for how they are assuming and

projecting.

That's fair. I just posted the census data so some factual impute

could
be
included in case this thread moves forward.

it is a mix between several sources, which is part of the problem.

I
think
we should stick to the Catholic church. LOL

What does the Catholic Church say the divorce rate is within the

church
and
outside the church?


I don't know. I'm not Catholic. I attend Non-Denominational and

Assemblies
of God Churches. I just threw that out to be a smart ass. I have to

run
off for the weekend, if not longer. I'll be taking off for McMinnville
tonight, then spending part of my day tomorrow in Salem for a baby

shower
(my cousin's 17 yo daughter), then my house for a short period of time,

then
Molalla to meet the parents, then back home just to rest up for Church
Sunday. I just thought I would throw out my thoughts today since I

don't
know when I'll get another chance - too much on my mind lately...


A simple "I don't know I was bluffing" would work.


You know me better than that... and I wasn't "bluffing". I was throwing out
an assumption - a guess.

BTW - I'm not alone in my thinking. I suggest you read through some of the
material found at the following link. The Catholic church claims their over
all divorce rate is less *much less* than half the US rate. That
information is contained within that link too. See - I did some searching.
Not much, but some. As far as my original statement to BRAD - I believe I
was referring to the 1975 report, or some other report using that data.
After all - some of the information posted in this group over the many years
I've been here could have been outdated.


The *real* divorce rate is 4.1, not 50%. It is reported per the population.
Not marriages - which is where it fails in its reporting.

http://www.prepinc.com/
http://www.divorcereform.org/stats.html

happy reading... you'll find a mix of opinions, and some match my own. I
simply don't agree with how the federal government is reporting numbers.


Good day...
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



  #9  
Old July 5th 03, 09:06 AM
Andrew Wells
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default On divorce Statistics

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message arthlink.net...
snips
Tracy - Men die in wars. Men die on the job. Men die commuting longer
distances to work. Men die while traveling on business. Women live longer
and every insurance company sets their actuary tables based on women's
longer life span.

snips

Not quite.

Insurance companies take account of female mortality rates when
setting premium rates etc for women, and of male mortality rates when
setting premium rates etc for men. If they need to set a rate for
something involving both men and women - eg for a policy which pays
out on the first death of a couple - they take account of both sets of
mortality rates.

Andrew
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case Fern5827 Spanking 8 October 4th 05 03:43 AM
HHS Releases 2002 National Statistics on Child Abuse and Neglect wexwimpy Foster Parents 1 April 2nd 04 03:11 PM
Daughters cause Divorce? dejablues General 0 October 9th 03 03:40 AM
Pangborn daily untruth uncovered Divorce Kenpangborn General 0 September 24th 03 01:01 AM
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept Bob Whiteside Child Support 213 July 11th 03 10:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.