On divorce Statistics

[Virginia]

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

[Brad]

>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

[Tracy]

"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 ***

[Bob Whiteside]

"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.

[Bob Whiteside]

"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?

[Tracy]

"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 ***

[Bob Whiteside]

"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.

[Tracy]

"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 ***

[Andrew Wells]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message nk.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