Find UFOs, The Apocalypse, New World Order, Political Analysis,
Alternative Health, Armageddon, Conspiracies, Prophecies,
Spirituality, Home Schooling, Home Mortgages and more, in:
Rumor Mill News Reading Room, Current Archive
Globalist Plans, Feminism, Family Court, & 'Economically-Attractive' Men
The median earnings of men working full time year-round in 2018 ticked up to $55,291. Adjusted for inflation, this was below the amount they earned in 1973, according to the annual data trove released by the Census Bureau today. In other words, there has been a “real” income decline for men over the past four-plus decades!
Women have seen a lot of progress in their real earnings, but they started out much lower, and they still haven’t caught up with men – whose earnings are sitting ducks. The median earnings of women working full-time year-round in 2018 ticked up to $45,097, a new record. Since 1973, women’s earnings adjusted for inflation have surged by 40%. The female-to-male earnings ratio hit a record in 2018 of 81.6%, up from 56.6% in 1973:
“Median earnings” means half earn more, and half earn less. Even though the Census Bureau publishes the earnings history of men and women for all to see, in the media you will not readily find this history – that the real earnings of men in 2018 were below where they’d been over 45 years ago.
It’s a very uncomfortable topic: Women deserve every penny in earnings increases, and there should have never been such a gap between men’s and women’s earnings in the first place. But men’s real earnings are a fiasco.
What you will find in the media instead is “household income,” total, all forms of income combined by all members of the household – which is politically a lot more correct.
Household income, adjusted for inflation but before taxes, doesn’t look that hot either. But soothingly, in 2018 it set a new record of $63,179. This was up 19% from 1973, roughly the average of the 40% surge for women and the slight decline for men:
“Earnings” in this data are the fruits of labor – wages, salaries, and the like (first chart).
“Household income” (second chart) includes “earnings” and other “money income” from all household members, from these income sources:
Earnings from work
Unemployment compensation
Workers’ compensation
Social security
Supplemental security income
Public assistance
Veterans’ payments
Survivor benefits
Disability benefits
Pension or retirement income
Interest
Dividends
Rents, royalties, and estates and trusts
Educational assistance
Alimony
Child support
Financial assistance from outside of the household
Other income
“Household income” is measured on a pretax basis. But it does not include noncash benefits, such as food stamps, subsidized housing benefits, or healthcare benefits — a biggie for executives at big companies. And it does not include capital gains, a biggie among the top income groups.
The income from investments (items 10, 11, 12, and 13 in the list above) play a critical role at the upper end of the distribution of household income.
And this is how the median household income, pretax and adjusted for inflation, has changed since 1967, by income segment (quintiles) and for the top 5% (red line):
Since 1967, the inflation-adjusted household income of the top 5% has soared by 125%, or by $231,224, to $416,520 in 2018 (not including capital gains).
But at the lowest quintile, household income ticked up only by $3,228 over the same period to just $13,775 and for the second quintile, it rose only by $8,072 to $37,293.
In 1967, the top 5% of households made 17.6 times more money than the lowest quintile. In 2018, the top 5% made 30 times more – not including the huge capital gains in recent years.
In terms of a more recent time frame: Over the 12 years since 2006 – so just before the Financial Crisis – the median household income, adjusted for inflation, at the lowest quintile fell by $398 to $13,775, while for the top 5%, it soared by $45,216 to a glorious $416,520:
And among men… Given that the median earnings adjusted for inflation have declined over the past four decades, even as earnings at the top have zoomed higher, the earnings at the lower end for men have seen substantial shrinkage.
This real-wage repression has occurred as a result of inflation, an insidious process whereby nominal wages inch up, but not quite enough to keep up with the Fed-engineered loss of purchasing power of the dollar that labor is denominated in.
And it gets a lot worse: “Inflation” as measured by CPI and “cost of living increases” are entirely different animals.
Many goods and services, including new cars and trucks, have seen very little or no “inflation” over the past 20 years as measured by CPI, though their actual prices have risen by a lot. As these products or services have gotten a better (in cars, it’s safety features, performance, additional equipment, and the like), you have to pay more. But because you get more, those increases in price that are related to quality increases are not considered “inflation,” though they raise the “costs of living” (here’s my story on how this works, including a chart about new vehicles inflation). And it makes sense to distinguish the two.
But the result is that the real earnings of men can no longer buy what they used to be able to buy, and their standard of living has sagged.
If you want to know why so many men are seething, it’s because the incomes of men in the lower half of the income spectrum gotten crushed by real-wage repression over the past decades, while incomes at the upper echelons have skyrocketed. For those whose incomes have skyrocketed, the surge in costs, such as housing costs, is no problem; but for those at the lower echelons, it’s an existential crisis.
~~~
Marriage rates are on the decline because of fewer 'economically-attractive' men as women are focused to choose between remaining single or 'settling' for less successful partners
Marriage rates are on the decline due to a lack of 'economically attractive' men with steady jobs for single to women to meet
The study found that married men had incomes that were 58% higher and were 30% more likely to be employed than unmarried men who are still available
Researchers at Cornell University found that women may instead 'settle' for a potential husband or remain unmarried altogether
Black women and other minorities face serious shortages of potential marital partners, as do unmarried women, the study found
By Leah Mcdonald For Dailymail.com
Published: 10:50 EDT, 6 September 2019 | Updated: 12:11 EDT, 6 September 2019
Marriage rates are on the decline due to a lack of 'economically attractive' men with steady jobs for single to women to meet, according to a study.
Researchers analysed data on recent marriages between 2007-2012 and 2013-2017 and concluded that there are fewer men with stable jobs and a good income available for unmarried women to match with.
The study from Cornell University examined characteristics of unmarried women's perfect or 'synthetic' spouses which were comparable to real life husbands of married women.
Marriage rates are on the decline due to a lack of 'economically attractive' men with steady jobs for single to women to meet, according to a study
Marriage rates are on the decline due to a lack of 'economically attractive' men with steady jobs for single to women to meet, according to a study
Authors found that so-called 'dream' husbands had an average income that was 58 per cent higher than the average unmarried man.
Women's perfect husbands were also were 30 per cent more likely to be employed and 19 per cent more likely to have a college degree than the average single American man, according to the study titled: 'Do Unmarried Women Face Shortages of Partners in the U.S. Marriage Market?.'
As a result, women may instead 'settle' for a match that falls short of their aspirations in a husband, the study suggests.
Women also may struggle to marry if they are of either a low or high socioeconomic status.
The study also found that women faced serious shortages of potential black or minority marital partners.
The authors also pointed to research which shows that the 'mass incarceration of black men' has depleted the pool of unmarried men in inner-city urban neighborhoods, which has greatly reduced the prospect of marriage for black women.
On average, black men are roughly seven times more likely than white men to be incarcerated.
Race remains a significant demographic dimension of national and local marriage market mismatches, especially as educational and income constraints are amplified within many low-income and segregated minority populations.
It concluded: 'This study reveals large deficits in the supply of potential male spouses. One implication is that the unmarried may remain unmarried or marry less well-suited partners.'
The study reinforced the commonplace view that women in modern society face new marriage trade-offs at a time when finding a suitable match has become more difficult.
Authors found that so-called 'dream' husbands had an average income that was 58% higher than unmarried men who are currently available to unmarried women
Daniel T. Lichter, the study's lead author and researcher with Cornell University, said: 'Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men—men with a stable job and a good income—make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs.
'Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.'
Authors found that traditional patterns of mating have shifted, switching from a tendency in 1980 for women to 'marry up' in socioeconomic status to a current trend of 'marrying down.'
It found that women face overall shortages of economically attractive partners with either a bachelor’s degree or incomes of more than $40,000 a year.
The synthetic spouses had an average income that was about 55% higher ($53,000 vs. $35,000), were 26% more likely to be employed (87% vs. 70%), and were 18% more likely to have a college degree (29% vs. 25%) than an unmarried American man
The synthetic spouses had an average income that was about 55% higher ($53,000 vs. $35,000), were 26% more likely to be employed (87% vs. 70%), and were 18% more likely to have a college degree (29% vs. 25%) than an unmarried American man
Nearly 40% (37%) of married men are college graduates compared with only 25% of unmarried men. Although the difference is small in absolute terms, the relative difference in employment status is large.
Nearly 40% (37%) of married men are college graduates compared with only 25% of unmarried men. Although the difference is small in absolute terms, the relative difference in employment status is large.
Minorities, Black, Asian, and other racial minority women, including Hispanics of any race—were significantly less likely to find suitable marital partners, regardless of their education or income levels
Minorities, Black, Asian, and other racial minority women, including Hispanics of any race—were significantly less likely to find suitable marital partners, regardless of their education or income levels
They said the findings reiterated previous research finding that mismatches in the marriage market in the form of shortages of economically attractive men may exacerbate uncertainty and heighten disincentives to marriage.
They said this comes at a time of rising education and growing financial independence among American women.
One solution, the study states, is that promoting good jobs may be the best marriage promotion policy rather than marriage education courses that teach new relationship skills.
Women who are highly-educated fare worse due to gender imbalances , as they will either increasingly remain unmarried or they will match with men of a lower social status both in education and financially.
The study noted that the average total income of married men is $70,000 compared with $35,000 for unmarried men. Nearly 40 per cent of married men are college graduates compared with only 25 per cent of unmarried men.
Although the difference is small in absolute terms, the relative difference in employment status is large.
About twice as many unmarried women are unemployed compared to married women.
~~~
Broke Men Are Hurting American Women's Marriage Prospects
