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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On divorce Statistics
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |