Why are more people living alone?

[Scotty]

There was a story in the Globe on the weekend about the numbers of Canadians living alone having skyrocketed.

Census figures released last fall revealed that 27.6 per cent of Canadian homes have just one occupant, a vast shift from decades past. Single dwellers accounted for only 7.4 per cent of homes in 1951 and 13.4 per cent in 1971.

The article puts a kind of a rosy face on this, largely suggesting it is a matter of choice and freedom, but I don't see it that way. The headline was more honest, though the writer failed to explore the second part of it. The headline was

Living alone: a testament to freedom or an erosion of society?

Is see it as more of an erosion of society than a statement of freedom. I don't think most people who are living alone actually chose to live alone. I think it just worked out that way, and almost everyone living alone would be delighted to find others to live with, but haven't, for a variety of reasons largely involving our isolation, been able to. We are all far more isolated today than we were in the past, islands unto ourselves. In the past, going back however far you choose, people tended to work together a lot. Men hunted, farmed, and laboured together, and women, even while staying home with the children, spent a lot of time and got to know all the other women on their streets or in their villages. Society wasn't designed for that, it just worked out that way. Now, most of us work in isolated cubicles staring at computers, and have few opportunities to get to know others. Most of us go home and watch TV and then get on computers. Again, it wasn't designed that way. It just worked out that way. So are we destined to be a society of loners playing video games and reading books (aside from the athletically inclined)? And how would we go about making our society a more inclusive place which incorporated elements of real socialization (not the political kind).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/living-alone-a-testament-to-freedom-or-an-erosion-of-society/article7264858/

[Moonlight Graham]

I'd suspect reasons include higher divorce rates, young people not getting married when they're 18-20 y/o anymore, and a higher elderly population who live without spouses (dead or divorced). More young people live at home with parents for much longer too nowadays so I would think it would counteract the numbers a bit.

I wonder if a higher % of people these days put mom/dad/grandparents in a retirement home nowadays too rather than letting their elderly family members stay with them? More women working would mean caring for elderly mom/dad at home is much harder.

[Boges]

Does Mom's basement count as "alone"?

[eyeball]

I can grok it. Some of the happiest most memorable times of my life have been when I was fishing alone at sea - that said it was always nice to anchor up with a couple of homies nearby. Makes it easier for the freighters to see you while you're bunked down.

[Topaz]

There are people out there who can't stand being by themselves and then there are people that do want to and with the stresses in todays world, maybe tha's the only time people can find "peace of mind".

[Guest American Woman]

I think more people are living alone because they have more life choices and can afford to live alone. One doesn't have to live with others to be part of society.

Edited to add:

Now, most of us work in isolated cubicles staring at computers, and have few opportunities to get to know others. Most of us go home and watch TV and then get on computers.

That's no more or less true whether one lives with someone or lives alone.

Edited January 16, 2013 by American Woman

[August1991]

More people live alone?

The "Progressive Left" claims that average "household income" is falling; it claims that there is a widenening gap between rich and poor.

Well, if two people each earning $75,000 live together, the household has an income of $150,000. If the two divorce/live separately, society has two poorer households - and statistically, there is a widening gap between rich and poor.

IOW, the "Progressive Left" claim of greater inequality is based on individuals choosing to live differently.

Imagine.

[Guest American Woman]

Don't know if it's just the "progressive left" making such claims, but - good point.

[eyeball]

August makes some pretty weird points and this certainly seems like one of them. I don't recall any special distinction being made by anyone that describes economic inequality (and power, don't forget power - the two go hand in hand like space and time) as being a phenomenon that is restricted or limited to household income.

I suppose it goes without saying that August also believes that it's lefties who separate and get divorced and end up living alone more often than anyone else. Probably because they're more promiscuous or something.

[msj]

I am going to guess that older people (65+) are probably going to be getting more and more alone.

While this seems obvious, one spouse dies therefore the surviving spouse is alone, but it has to do with how older people form relationships.

Since they have kids (sometimes from multiple partners) many seniors who begin to "date" and often stay over night at each others' house, will continue to call themselves "single" even though they effectively are not.

They do this because to become common law or married has implications if when one partner dies leaving all or part of the estate to that newish spouse (depending on if one updates ones will etc...).

It's just easier to be "single" than to revise ones' will, set up an "alter ego" trust and/or other legal/tax maneuvers necessary to ensure that ones' estate passes to his/her own kids rather than to his/her "special friend with benefits."

[BC_chick]

We started living unnaturally the moment we tamed fire. Therafter there is no pinnacle of humanity where we had it right. Every era had some good about it and some bad so for me the whole 'demise' of society is ridiculous to begin with.

Yes, we spend more time on the internet. Well, just like anything else that revoluationized the world, the internet came with some bad. But it also came with a mountain of good so how can it be any kind of a 'demise'?

As for living alone, I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. We have an image in our minds of a lonely person eating TV dinners and while that may be case for some people, it's not always the case. Lots of people live alone and have a fulfilling social life.

I've never been big on living with people. I love being in relationships, having friends, going out, but I need my alone time after. Especially in this urban lifestyle where you see a family of four living in 1000 square feet. That's just way too claustrophobic, I would die.

[msj]

We started living unnaturally the moment we tamed fire.

How is taming fire "unnatural?"

Anything humans do is natural.

[August1991]

I am going to guess that older people (65+) are probably going to be getting more and more alone.

Are older people more alone than younger people?

---

It appears that people prefer to live alone (and they also prefer to have fewer children). As a result, households have fewer members and consequently the median household income is lower now than in the past.

Why do people prefer to live alone? Greta Garbo was rich, for her time. Anyone who has read any autobiography/diary from the 19th/20th century quickly understands that sharing a house is rarely pleasant. (Think of Jane Austen. Or Anne Frank.)

Nowadays, ordinary individuals - in China, Bangladesh, America - are richer, better off, and they choose to use this greater wealth to live alone.

[i know that that this observation/fact runs counter to the Right/Left/Progressive/MSM meme that suburban kids are living in their Mom's basement, or Hollywood is destroying the family... ]

I think more people are living alone because they have more life choices and can afford to live alone. One doesn't have to live with others to be part of society.

Precisely. Edited January 20, 2013 by August1991

[Bonam]

We started living unnaturally the moment we tamed fire. Therafter there is no pinnacle of humanity where we had it right.

You mean we had it right at some point before that?

Especially in this urban lifestyle where you see a family of four living in 1000 square feet. That's just way too claustrophobic, I would die.

Where my family came from in Russia, they had 3 generations comprising 8 individuals living in one single room, sharing a single bathroom and single kitchen with ~10 other families on the same floor. And that was about the norm. 4 people in 1000 sqft isn't even that bad at all, but I definitely see your point, would rather live alone than in a situation that does not afford reasonable space and privacy.

[cybercoma]

We started living unnaturally the moment we tamed fire.

Possibly, but I would say as soon as we domesticated crops and animals.

[msj]

Possibly, but I would say as soon as we domesticated crops and animals.

How is that unnatural?

[BC_chick]

You mean we had it right at some point before that?

No, I was responding to the OP's argument about the 'demise' of society and what human beings were 'designed' to do.

I stated that our 'natural' state was gone when we learned to tame fire, and I don't think there was ever a pinnacle anywhere in the history of humanity.

There is no connection between the two ideas, they stand independently.

How is taming fire "unnatural?"

Anything humans do is natural.

As I said to Bonam, I was responding to the OP's post and what human beings were 'designed' to do. Everything we do is part of our evolution, then and now. Did you read past the first sentence of my post? I did elaborate.

Edited January 21, 2013 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

Possibly, but I would say as soon as we domesticated crops and animals.

Some would say it was the industrial revolution. Or now the information age.

Truth is there have been several evolutionary points which changed us drastically, but fire was the first. We stayed warm and moved to different climates, we cooked our food, we could see in the night, we could scare predators. Some even say the root of our social existence started with fire.

[Bonam]

Some would say it was the industrial revolution. Or now the information age.

Truth is there have been several evolutionary points which changed us drastically, but fire was the first. We stayed warm and moved to different climates, we cooked our food, we could see in the night, we could scare predators. Some even say the root of our social existence started with fire.

There were many transformational points in human history. It should be noted that these have nothing to do with "evolution" (in the biological sense) but rather are the development of technology and knowledge. I am guessing that there were likely other important points prior to the development of fire, such as the first use of tools, such as stones to help fight predators or damage prey. But more important than either would perhaps be the development of language. The relative chronology of these developments is not well known.The first use of fire is thought to be 1.9-1.0 million years ago. Evidence of tool use dates back 2.6 million years. The time of development of basic spoken language is not known but is estimated to be anywhere from about 2.3-0.6 million years ago.

One important thing to note about human history is that the development of such transformational technologies and systems of knowledge has been coming ever faster. Where in pre-history it took many hundreds of thousands of years between significant developments such as tools, fire, language, agriculture, etc, by the 1600-1800s such developments happened perhaps a few times in a person's lifetime, and by the 20th century, every year or even more often. The pace of change of human civilization is accelerating rapidly, and it is nearly impossible to predict in advance the impact of transformational knowledge and technologies.

[BC_chick]

Right you are, I meant to say revolutionary point, not evolutionary. Long weekend, tired brain... oops.

As for fire vs. tools debate, I think my point here is getting lost in the details. I'm basically disagreeing with Scotty that this exact moment in time is when we took a turn away from our 'design' and began our 'demise'.

I used fire because that to me always seems like the turning point since we could see in the dark and cook our food. But sure, we can use tools if you prefer. It still comes back to the same thing... there is no demise, there is no design. We are just continually changing.

We may sit in cubicles, live alone, and spend too much time on the internet but hey, we get to face-time ourfriends and relatives in other countries, we don't enslave other human beings, women are considered people and list goes on.

How can anyone call that a demise?

Edited January 21, 2013 by BC_chick

[Bonam]

I used fire because that to me always seems like the turning point since we could see in the dark and cook our food. But sure, we can use tools if you prefer. It still comes back to the same thing... there is no demise, there is no design. We are just continually changing.

I agree.

We may sit in cubicles, live alone, and spend too much time on the internet but hey, we get to face-time ourfriends and relatives in other countries, we don't enslave other human beings, women are considered people and list goes on.

How can anyone call that a demise?

Well, different people have different values. These values often arise and develop during their formative times. As the world changes and its values change away from what someone grew up with, they may see such change as bad. In the past, the world changed slowly enough that it usually remained pretty much the same within one person's lifetime or at least a large portion thereof. Today, the world changes from year to year. And this will only become more and more extreme. Only those who thrive on change are likely to see this as a good thing, more and more will likely complain about the world's progressing or imminent demise.

[GostHacked]

August makes some pretty weird points and this certainly seems like one of them. I don't recall any special distinction being made by anyone that describes economic inequality (and power, don't forget power - the two go hand in hand like space and time) as being a phenomenon that is restricted or limited to household income.

They are not weird, but in actuality a reality. It's a breakdown of society through technology. How many isolate themselves by escaping the real world into the technology and Internet. How many people on the bus or on the street are constantly looking at their phones instead of watching where they are going? Many are wearing headphones to tune out the rest of the world.

But August is right, 1 house/two parents making 150Gs is statistically different from two houses with a single parent each making 75Gs. You can easily show the gap. One thing is that each separate parent now has to spend more of their money in order to sustain the level of living when the two were living together under the same roof. It's not that hard to see how the separated parents are now collectively spending twice as much each on the things they needed before (housing, clothing, food, amenities like heat, electricity ect). And since the cost of all this stuff has risen drastically over the past couple decades and wages have stayed the same (even when taking into account inflation). Less money is staying in the pockets of people.

I suppose it goes without saying that August also believes that it's lefties who separate and get divorced and end up living alone more often than anyone else. Probably because they're more promiscuous or something.

This is not a left or right issue, this is a whole society issue. and has SFA to do with promiscuity.

[eyeball]

I guess it was the thought of 75 grand per year being associated with poverty that threw me for a loop. It seemed ridiculous but maybe that's just me.

[GostHacked]

I guess it was the thought of 75 grand per year being associated with poverty that threw me for a loop. It seemed ridiculous but maybe that's just me.

I think it is more of a tool to show income gap per household. More people living alone (no matter what the reason is) will show a reduction in overall median and average household income. The gap between the rich and middle class is widening based on that. If this has that effect on the middle class, and there would be a wider gap yet from middle class to the poor compared to rich and middle class.

[dre]

IOW, the "Progressive Left" claim of greater inequality is based on individuals choosing to live differently.

Imagine.

Well I've never seen that claim personally. The claims of greater inequality I usually see are based on the growing gap between workers and investors, and how investment profits have dramatically outpaced real wage growth over the last 30 years.

You dont even appear to know what your philosophical opponents say, claim, or believe!

Imagine.