This makes me ponder the value of time. Children who are born to poor mothers have increased competency in the classroom because their mothers delayed birth? How exactly does being poor and having a child early differ from being poor and having a child later? Is there a numerical difference in income that exists as a catalyst with regard to delay? Like wouldn't a woman who works a low income job in her early 20's have the same child rearing capacity as a woman who works a low income job and is in her early 30's?

This is interesting to see, it makes me wonder how much the difference is between men and women within the biological differences, and how these differences in turn result in different socioeconomic outcomes

This makes me think of how a lot of young people on social media think they know what's best for children. I have seen many people on Twitter advocate for divorcing of parents and claiming a separate house is better than a fighting house. I was like, there are literally studies that show that divorce is substantially detrimental to children both psychologically and physically; your twitter anecdotal evidence is insignificant.

The information the author is suggesting can come as a rebuttal to the theory that men's employment is economically driven (that less educated men literally can't work because there's so little opportunity, the "hourglass economy"); however, I would argue that it does not rebut the argument but rather comes as an additional qualification to the argument. Yes, the lack of employment for middle educated men is scarce but, in addition to that, the decline from marriage is an additional factor to the decrease in male labor force participation.

I think it's interesting to note the contrast in what a higher education yields in terms of union stability and how divorce is seen as somewhat of a beneficial thing in other countries as opposed to those in developed countries who have seen an increase in union stability in relation to educational attainment.

This is honestly a really groundbreaking, if not controversial, statement. Funding of schools has been one of the most publicly endorsed policies from my own personal perspective; it's crazy to think that the issue is so much deeper and frankly due to a an entirely separate, and much more difficult, issue. People will likely attack this, stating that social inequality is not dependent upon people, specifically parents, but is the fault of the government.

This reminds me of that sociological concept of when minorities have to work harder for something, they sort of are more grateful for it -- like fighting oppression fortifies unity within oppressed groups

I think it's interesting to note that these factors are external and also that these external factors can and will change at a substantial rate due to dramatic changes in the perception of same sex couples. I wonder if these numbers will improve or not in the future.

I personally am confused as to what ethnicity has to do with this, especially given that much of the 1965 data was eschewed due to an overgeneralization, or lack of options in terms of ethnic self identification.

My parents are Indonesian and, since Indonesia is very strict in its religious traditions, are married, educated, the whole nine yards, so they have always criticized Western countries for high divorce rates, stating that it is due to the "hook-up culture". It is interesting to see that divorce rates are increasing not only on this side of the earth but on the Asian side as well. It makes me wonder how much of the increase of divorce rates is accredited to a culture's values and how much is actually due sociological factors like poverty and educational inequality.