Study overturns what we know about divorce in the US.

[RiverDad]

Here's the punchline - previous divorce studies suffered from incomplete data because Federal authorities had given up on funding the collection of state divorce data, so any conclusions reached were based on incomplete data which was presented as national-level aggregated data. So those reports about the incidence of divorce dropping with time, um, not so much:

Or is there? A new paper by Sheila Kennedy and Steven Ruggles appearing in the most recent issue of the journal Demography not only battles with the numbers, it kicks them and much of the accepted wisdom about divorce rates out of the house. Divorce has not gone down, they argue compellingly: it has risen to record highs.

Kennedy and Ruggles spend the first half of their paper, nicely titled “Breaking Up is Hard to Count,” explaining why demographers could have been so wrong about what may strike the uninitiated as a rather easily calculated figure. To oversimplify a complex story: the United States has been lousy at collecting data. Individual counties may keep pretty good track of finalized divorce cases, but someone else—meaning the states—has to collect and tabulate that information, and someone else—the Census Bureau—has to put it all together.

There were occasional periods of our history, including between the years 1960 and 1990, when we were pretty good at that. But in 1996 the federal government lost interest in the whole enterprise and stopped providing financial support for detailed state collection. By 2005, six states including Georgia, Minnesota, and California—California!—stopped reporting entirely. In sum, since 1996 and possibly earlier, researchers have been digging divorce information out of a drought-ridden, muddy pool of information.​

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I don't quite understand how a 2.2% decline in the divorce rate over a 28 year period translates to a 40% increase.

I also don't quite understand why this is even worth discussing.

 

[US Conservative]

I don't quite understand how a 2.2% decline in the divorce rate over a 28 year period translates to a 40% increase.

I also don't quite understand why this is even worth discussing.

You dont see how fundamental shifts in the cornerstones of society matter?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

You dont see how fundamental shifts in the cornerstones of society matter?

There's a difference between something mattering and something being worth discussion.

I grew up in a household where the telephone was employable as a murder weapon, long distance was expensive, and if you wanted to reach anyone in our home you had to call when someone was near-ish to the phone because we didn't have an answering machine. Now I have a cell phone, communications are much cheaper and direct.

Significant in and of itself, but not worth discussing.

 

[US Conservative]

There's a difference between something mattering and something being worth discussion.

I grew up in a household where the telephone was employable as a murder weapon, long distance was expensive, and if you wanted to reach anyone in our home you had to call when someone was near-ish to the phone because we didn't have an answering machine. Now I have a cell phone, communications are much cheaper and direct.

Significant in and of itself, but not worth discussing.

Your example does not explain how the rise in the divorce rate, especially since the 1960's are not worth discussion. Nor does it explain why you entered this thread to say as much.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Your example does not explain how the rise in the divorce rate, especially since the 1960's are not worth discussion.

I dispute that the divorce rate has risen. The "age-adjusted" rate has supposedly risen, which makes no sense since the term is not defined and the overall divorce rate has decreased 2.2%.

Nor does it explain why you entered this thread to say as much.

Because it's appropriate to point out that something isn't worthy of discussion when it is not in fact worthy of discussion.

 

[US Conservative]

I dispute that the divorce rate has risen. The "age-adjusted" rate has supposedly risen, which makes no sense since the term is not defined and the overall divorce rate has decreased 2.2%.



Because it's appropriate to point out that something isn't worthy of discussion when it is not in fact worthy of discussion.

Its fascinating that you still felt compelled to enter the discussion, to say its not worthy of discussion.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Its fascinating that you still felt compelled to enter the discussion, to say its not worthy of discussion.

It's fascinating that you chose to make this about me, rather than answer either of my questions.

 

[US Conservative]

It's fascinating that you chose to make this about me, rather than answer either of my questions.

Stop being so fascinating, and maybe you wont be worthy of discussion.

 

[CriticalThought]

From the abstract of the study...

Among the youngest couples, however, divorce rates are stable or declining. If current trends continue, overall age-standardized divorce rates could level off or even decline over the next few decades. We argue that the leveling of divorce among persons born since 1980 probably reflects the increasing selectivity of marriage.

We refer to this as a pendulum folks. Enough young people have grown up in homes affected by divorce (or a lack of marriage altogether) that they are likely refusing to follow in their parent's footsteps. Marriage is and always has been a market commodity. It is useful and valuable in itself, and once people taste what things are like without it, they will naturally seek it out to better their own lives and the lives of their children.

 

[RiverDad]

I'm reading the paper now. Good God Almighty, I can't get my head around the fact that the very simple task of compiling county level divorce data, sending it to the state which in turn would send it to the Feds was so expensive a task, such a Manhattan Project of complexity, that states began abandoning this because there were higher spending priorities. How much expense is involved in updating an Excel spreadsheet?

This is basic government function here - compile statistics. A divorce decree is granted, then record it into a database.

Now researchers in this field have to rely on the American Community Survey. A survey can never be more accurate that a straight out count of divorces.

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm reading the paper now. Good God Almighty, I can't get my head around the fact that the very simple task of compiling county level divorce data, sending it to the state which in turn would send it to the Feds was so expensive a task, such a Manhattan Project of complexity, that states began abandoning this because there were higher spending priorities. How much expense is involved in updating an Excel spreadsheet?

This is basic government function here - compile statistics. A divorce decree is granted, then record it into a database.

Now researchers in this field have to rely on the American Community Survey. A survey can never be more accurate that a straight out count of divorces.

If you had a budget and you had to choose between hiring someone to compile statistics on divorce or hiring a child welfare investigator, which would you pick?

 

[US Conservative]

From the abstract of the study...



We refer to this as a pendulum folks. Enough young people have grown up in homes affected by divorce (or a lack of marriage altogether) that they are likely refusing to follow in their parent's footsteps. Marriage is and always has been a market commodity. It is useful and valuable in itself, and once people taste what things are like without it, they will naturally seek it out to better their own lives and the lives of their children.

I think you might be right. Modern culture has done much to dismiss marriage. People are all about themselves, and I think the young are determined to either not get married, or really make it work.

 

[RiverDad]

If you had a budget and you had to choose between hiring someone to compile statistics on divorce or hiring a child welfare investigator, which would you pick?

In principle, compile statistics, hands down, for this is basic government service. Even for liberals their policies have to be in reaction to SOMETHING. We have to know what's going on in the nation. This type of data collection isn't even intrusive, you can't have a private divorce, it's a public record. The clerks are already doing all the paperwork in the courthouse. So your reference to a Full Time Equivalent employee needed to compile the statistics is way overkill.

Think about it. If you don't know how many children live in poverty or need a school lunch, then how can you design a policy to fix that problem? You need data in order to understand an issue. Understanding comes before solution.

 

[RiverDad]

From the paper itself (NCHS = National Center for Health Statistics):

All things considered, the ACS estimates are more credible than the vital statistics. As NCHS acknowledges, there has been significant underreporting of divorces in the vital records after 1990. Although it is conceivable that the ACS could over-report divorce, we expect that any net over-reporting would be small.​

Here is a look at historical methods and the importance placed on gathering data:

The quality of early divorce statistics was good, especially in comparison to the available data from that period on births, deaths, and marriages. Carroll D. Wright, the U.S. Commissioner of Labor, wrote in the first Federal report on divorce that the statistics were “practically complete,” although he acknowledged that some omissions took place, partly because “as the divorce papers are usually filed indiscriminately with others, constituting in some counties a vast quantity of papers, here and there one might be missed” (Wright 1889: 133). Wright compiled statistics for the period from 1867 to 1886 from the nation’s 2,700 counties. He sent “special agents” to the county seats, where they went through public court records to record the details of each divorce case. The Census Bureau conducted a similar survey covering the period 1887 to 1906 using essentially the same methodology (U.S. Census Bureau 1908).​

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

In principle, compile statistics, hands down, for this is basic government service. Even for liberals their policies have to be in reaction to SOMETHING. We have to know what's going on in the nation. This type of data collection isn't even intrusive, you can't have a private divorce, it's a public record. The clerks are already doing all the paperwork in the courthouse. So your reference to a Full Time Equivalent employee needed to compile the statistics is way overkill.

Think about it. If you don't know how many children live in poverty or need a school lunch, then how can you design a policy to fix that problem? You need data in order to understand an issue. Understanding comes before solution.

The compilation of relevant statistics is a basic government service. How is it that you can compare tracking the number of children living in poverty with the divorce rate, as if their respective relevance was anywhere in the same ball-park?

Also, you still have not explained how a 2.2% drop in divorce can somehow be manipulated to look like an increase.