A very interesting article in this week's Economist: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9218127
Basically, the article discusses the gap between people who have babies in their teens versus those who don't. It equates young marriage and child-rearing with lower education levels, higher poverty, more chance for divorce, and more of the repeating cycle. And it shows this gap rising over time.
It also supports the education of what marriage is and raises questions about the glorified importance of marriage to Americans beyond the core idea of continuing the family line, where as countries like Italy and India stress that importance.
The marriage gap within the US makes me wonder about consumption being tied to a mass of people single without children. With the rising number of people waiting to have greater responsibility, has this aided to our more consumer-based culture? Sure not all people are single and gluttonous, but the single people are sometimes put on a pedestal. Rarely do I see the media value a stable relationship without the bait that it gets you tangible stuff.
Food for thought.
About Me
- Shauner
- Shaun spent 4 years in advertising and sales promotions, employed as a strategic planner and cultural anthropologist for clients such as Coors Brewing, Quiznos Subs, Miller Brewing, Bacardi-Martini, Motorola, and many more. In 2005, he left advertising to join the family business - a mid-sized microelectronics manufacturing firm. He is also active in several non-profits serving at-risk inner-city youth. When not at work, Shaun reminisces fondly about his 6 years of international DJ experience, 3 years of international surfing instructor experience, 4 years as an account planner, and his 120+ job interviews in the advertising industry. He has been recognized as a valuable change-agent and a rebellious advertising professional. He works well on new business strategy teams and intimate brainstorms. He has made as many friends as enemies due to his tendency towards deconstruction and creativity. He’s been sighted pushing boundaries that most people don’t think need to be pushed.
1 comment:
New York City versus the flat lands is really the perfect example of this because NYC almost forces you to be smart economically when it comes to planning a family. The cost of living is just so high, the medical benefit jobs so scarce that having babies at 22 just won't work. It's really not even feasible.
In the rest of the company where there is also not as much of an abundance of opportunity, life settles down relatively quickly. In New York, having enough disosable income to buy a place doesn't ever happen for most people, and for the rest, it's something that happens after putting in your dues. Elsewhere, you go to school, you get a job, cost of living is lower so you have disposable income and your life might be totally set when you're 23 or 24. You have a house, you're making about what you're going to make plus cost of living increases for the rest of your life. Why not start now and have a family?
I used to sit next to an economics expert when I ran Adholes full time. He asked me "What's the number you should look at when determining someone's long term financial prospects?" The answer? It's the number of kids they have.
Post a Comment