Why are more people living alone?

[Bonam]

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.

I think what he's saying is that with a lot of single person households, there is a wider spread of incomes, since single person households tend to fall on the lower end of the spectrum, as they often consist of young students or widowed seniors. When the income distribution is normalized in an appropriate way for household size, the observed inequality and growth thereof in recent decades is somewhat reduced (though not eliminated).

Edited January 22, 2013 by Bonam

[dre]

I think what he's saying is that with a lot of single person households, there is a wider spread of incomes, since single person households tend to fall on the lower end of the spectrum, as they often consist of young students or widowed seniors. When the income distribution is normalized in an appropriate way for household size, the observed inequality and growth thereof in recent decades is somewhat reduced (though not eliminated).

I never see the claim of inequality expressed that way though. I see it as a comparison to wages earned by workers VS owners/investors, and in the way that capital is allocated. Family size does nothing to mitigate this at all. And his assertion that income inequality is merely "based on individuals choosing to live differently" is utterly retarded.

[Bonam]

I never see the claim of inequality expressed that way though. I see it as a comparison to wages earned by workers VS owners/investors, and in the way that capital is allocated.

The way I often see it presented is by looking at household income or household wealth and plotting that distribution. A very broad or double humped distribution would indicate severe inequality, while a Gaussian-looking distribution with a strong peak in the middle-class would indicate relative equality. For example:

Now imagine if some of the low income earners on the graph instead lived in larger households with multiple earners and thus had higher household incomes. Then, the distribution would be peaked further to the right, with a more rapid dropoff to the left. That is, a sharper peak in the middle.

Note that a perfectly equal distribution would be one really tall bar in the middle and zero everywhere else. Somewhere I saw a graph comparing this household income distribution with one that was normalized for household size and the normalized one looks somewhat more equal, can't find it right now though.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

I think what he's saying is that with a lot of single person households, there is a wider spread of incomes, since single person households tend to fall on the lower end of the spectrum, as they often consist of young students or widowed seniors.

It also consists of just one income in many instances, as partners and spouses and roommates often work, too. The income doesn't have to be all that low, but compared to a household with two comparable incomes, it would appear to be "low." Taking the same sum of a country's income and dividing it by more households because more people are living alone, gives one a smaller end result - even though total income hasn't decreased.

[eyeball]

It's a good thing when families break apart because GDP goes up.

Everybody wins.

[August1991]

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.

My cat has a "language" too.

It is written language that is remarkable and the first written language concerned accounts. IMHO, it is the invention of prices (numbers) - clear terms of trade - that was the greatest invention/transformation of humans. Number systems date from about 50,000 years or so.

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.

I disagree. As an easy example: a person born in 1890 was born into a world without penicillin, airplanes, radio. Yet if the person lived 70 years, they would have seen a man walk on the moon.

Will a person born in 1990 see such changes?

Edited January 23, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

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).

It's not twice as much but clearly there are economies of scale in household living: one stove or fridge can serve several people.

OTOH, there are "diseconomies" of scale too: teenage girls seem to require several bathrooms.

----

The Left is simply wrong to claim that we are worse off (poorer) now than 30 years ago. In 1980, we had no cellphones, no Internet. Catscans did not exist. Clothes were costly.

In 1980, many people (in Soviet Russia, Maoist China and Gandhi India) wasted time simply living.

Nowadays, individuals around the world are richer (it's much easier to make a phone call - or Skype a Russian, Chinese, Indian) and apparently, people use some of this greater wealth to live alone. Or have fewer children.

----

Let me be partisan: Around the world, from 1980-2010, Ronald Reagan - with his ideas - made individuals better off.

Will Barack Obama - with his ideas - achieve the same from 2008-2038?

It's a good thing when families break apart because GDP goes up.

Everybody wins.

WTF? Edited January 23, 2013 by August1991

[dre]

The Left is simply wrong to claim that we are worse off (poorer) now than 30 years ago.

Thats not what "the left" claims. You are arguing with an imaginary group of people in your head. Nobody denies that technology has made peoples lives better in a whole host of ways.

Let me be partisan: Around the world, from 1980-2010, Ronald Reagan - with his ideas - made individuals better off.

What ideas are those?

[eyeball]

WTF?

It's true and it gets even better if you're also dying of cancer.

[Bonam]

Will a person born in 1990 see such changes?

Yes. A person born in 1990 will see such changes, and changes bigger by far, I expect.

[August1991]

Thats not what "the left" claims. You are arguing with an imaginary group of people in your head. Nobody denies that technology has made peoples lives better in a whole host of ways.

Sorry, the Left claims endlessly that ordinary American households are worse off now than thirty years ago: median household income is falling, ordinary people live worse, greater inequality.

If your household wants to go back to 1980 payphones and 26" CRT, go ahead.

What made this new technology possible? A president like Reagan, or a president like Obama?

Yes. A person born in 1990 will see such changes, and changes bigger by far, I expect.

Well, a person born in 1940 is still waiting. Edited January 23, 2013 by August1991

[dre]

Sorry, the Left claims endlessly that ordinary American households are worse off now than thirty years ago: median household income is falling, ordinary people live worse, greater inequality.

If your household wants to go back to 1980 payphones and 26" CRT, go ahead.

What made this new technology possible? A president like Reagan, or a president like Obama?

Well, a person born in 1940 is still waiting.

Sorry, the Left claims endlessly that ordinary American households are worse off now than thirty years ago: median household income is falling, ordinary people live worse, greater inequality.

Youre wrong. Again youre talking about an imaginary group of people in your head that doesnt exist in the real world. The "left" does complain about inequality and relatively stagnant real wages, but very few people on either side of the spectrum believe our lives are worse overall than they were in the 70's. I understand that its fun to argue with imaginary people whos positions you can invent but its rather meaningly.

What made this new technology possible? A president like Reagan, or a president like Obama?

Both and neither. Technology was made possible by engineers and inventors and strong investment by both the public and private sectors for a hundred years, and by consumers having enough income to demand new products and services. Reagan and Obama are actually very similar in that Reagan pioneered deficit financing and the idea of using inflation to extract money from the rest of the world to finance economic growth and innovation, and Obama has continued that.

Again you have this view of these people as cartoon heros and villains... not sure how youve gotten so consumed with it.

[Bonam]

Well, a person born in 1940 is still waiting.

Are you referring to yourself? If so, you may want to pause and think about your earlier example:

I disagree. As an easy example: a person born in 1890 was born into a world without penicillin, airplanes, radio. Yet if the person lived 70 years, they would have seen a man walk on the moon.

You talked about walking on the moon. That happened in the lifetime of someone born in 1940. The internet is certainly as important as radio, your other example. Genetic engineering, medical diagnostics, the completion of the human genome project, cloning, etc, are all advances in biology and medicine certainly no less significant than penicillin. And while airplanes were invented before 1940, it was long after 1940 that they became mainstream and widely available as a means of regular travel to the public.

The changes in the 70 years following 1940 are no less significant than the changes in the 70 years following 1890. The world has not reached some static end state where nothing further of importance can be invented or revolutionized. If you really think it has, that says nothing about the world, but only about your lack of imagination. Strange for someone who ends so many of his posts with "Imagine!".

[August1991]

The "left" does complain about inequality and relatively stagnant real wages, but very few people on either side of the spectrum believe our lives are worse overall than they were in the 70's.

On the contrary.

Many on the Left claim that ordinary people, poor people, the so-called 99%, have gained nothing since 1980. For these Leftists (CBC producers, too many Le Devoir abonnés), any increase in GDP has made a few richer. According to the Left, GDP per capita may be higher - but the poor have gained nothing. Median income has not changed, the wealth is concentrated in a fewer hands.

Heck, Obama recently made such claims in a January 2013 speech.

-----

Nevertheless, many ordinary people around the world, billions of people since 1980, are "richer" because they can reach into their pocket and phone/talk/text to their mother, or a friend. (I hate the term "loved one".)

And fundamentally, who made this possible: people who think like Ronald Reagan, or people who think like Barack Obama?

Edited January 23, 2013 by August1991

[Bonam]

Nevertheless, many ordinary people around the world, billions of people, are richer because they can reach into their pocket and phone/talk to their mother, or a friend.

Interesting that you make such an example and yet discount the transformative value of recent and future technological progress.

[August1991]

Interesting that you make such an example and yet discount the transformative value of recent and future technological progress.

I ask rather: what kind of social/political system fosters such change?

To me, Obama's message seems Soviet: "The State will provide security".

[dre]

On the contrary.

Many on the Left claim that ordinary people, poor people, the so-called 99%, have gained nothing since 1980. For these Leftists (CBC producers, too many Le Devoir abonnés), any increase in GDP has made a few richer. According to the Left, GDP per capita may be higher - but the poor have gained nothing. Median income has not changed, the wealth is concentrated in a fewer hands.

Heck, Obama recently made such claims in a January 2013 speech.

-----

Nevertheless, many ordinary people around the world, billions of people since 1980, are "richer" because they can reach into their pocket and phone/talk/text to their mother, or a friend. (I hate the term "loved one".)

And fundamentally, who made this possible: people who think like Ronald Reagan, or people who think like Barack Obama?

Many on the Left claim that ordinary people, poor people, the so-called 99%, have gained nothing since 1980.

And yet again you are arguing against a strawman, derived from an imaginary group of people that exists only in your own mind. There is no mainstream component of "the left" that asserts people have gained nothing.

Nevertheless, many ordinary people around the world, billions of people since 1980, are "richer" because they can reach into their pocket and phone/talk/text to their mother, or a friend. (I hate the term "loved one".)

You keep repeating this drivel as though its in response to some kind of argument against your position but it isnt. Its just mindless nonsense. The IT era is embraced by both sides of the political sprectrum, and only rejected by a small demographic that exists on both sides. Again... your comic book view of the world does nothing besides make you sound silly.

And fundamentally, who made this possible: people who think like Ronald Reagan, or people who think like Barack Obama?

I answered this question already and you completely ignored it. Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama couldnt invent themselves out of a wet paper bag. Inventors and engineers and investors and consumers are the ones the fueled innovation and creativity. You seem to subscribe to a very liberal world view that would have us believe technological innovation is simply the result of which person leads government, and that we rely on government for invention and innovation. I dont buy that for a second, and technological progress has continued under every single administration for hundreds of years.

You live in a fantasty world.

[dre]

I ask rather: what kind of social/political system fosters such change?

To me, Obama's message seems Soviet: "The State will provide security".

Oh good christ....

[GostHacked]

Interesting that you make such an example and yet discount the transformative value of recent and future technological progress.

Does some of the technology help us as a society? Or does it facilitate the isolationism and living alone the OP is talking about.

I loathe some of this technology and how it is used and I am in IT. I cannot stand text messaging on the phone anymore. I ignore all the ones I am sent. If you want to talk to me, call me ... type of thing.

[BC_chick]

When the industrial revolution happened, a lot of people were unhappy about the number of people of who lost jobs as well as the pollution that came along with it.

Of course they had a point, but overall, no big change comes with just good. There's always bad too. Some people see the good, some people (a la Scotty) see the bad.

Millions of years after taming fire, people are saying 'but we're just not DESIGNED to eat cooked food' (designed is the same word Scotty used for our solitary existence).

Which is perhaps partly true, but it doesn't mean taming fire was a bad thing. It openened up lots of good too... just as the industrial revolution did, and the information age, etc etc...

We're chaning and adapting. Do you really want to give up having all information known to humankind in your pocket just so people call you instead of text?

[DogOnPorch]

The number of people who lost jobs? During the Industrial Revolution the population of the UK doubled in 50 years...then doubled again from that in another 50 years. The standard of living was much higher than in the 1600s and life expectancy had gone up. Thank-you cotton underwear.

[RB]

Why are more people living alone?

I think it has to something to do with the 1.2:2 population ratio and dynamics with siblings. I think people don't know how to live with another person because of the lack of siblings - means that they have developed mechanisms, and coping strategies to live and do well on their own from the start.

It points to difficulty living with another person as in forever e.g. like it is fun to have a guest over for a few weeks, but if the guest are settling the long haul for 2 years (or however short the relationships), they have really overstayed the welcome. Get going mister!!

.

Edited January 31, 2013 by RB

[cybercoma]

How is that unnatural?

Because they're domesticated?

[August1991]

Why are more people living alone?

I think it has to something to do with the 1.2:2 population ratio and dynamics with siblings. I think people don't know how to live with another person because of the lack of siblings - means that they have developed mechanisms, and coping strategies to live and do well on their own from the start.

It points to difficulty living with another person as in forever e.g. like it is fun to have a guest over for a few weeks, but if the guest are settling the long haul for 2 years (or however short the relationships), they have really overstayed the welcome. Get going mister!!

RB, read a Jane Austen novel. Imagine life in England in the 19th century.

Living alone is a costly luxury. Heck, a bed is a luxury.

[msj]

Because they're domesticated?

So who/what is being "unnatural?"

Is it humans who are subjecting beasts/plants to domestication, the beasts/plants themselves, or both?

If it is "unnatural" for domestication to occur then how come it has occurred?

Edited February 2, 2013 by msj