Is 30 the new 18?

[Mise]

Contraception lead to women delaying marriage and childbirth, to women entering higher education in greater numbers, and to women pursuing careers over marriage. All of those things are widely established empirical facts; the phenomenon has been widely studied in economics and in other social sciences, and I am absolutely not going to argue about it. The fact that 50% of the population can now delay childbirth and marriage, and instead pursue longer spells in education and a richer, longer and deeper career explains pretty much all of this stuff. Delaying life milestones from your early 20s to your early 30s is absolutely the result of widespread use of cheap, effective contraception, and it couldn't happen without it, for both men and women.

If you want to learn more about how contraception has changed society already, just do a quick google. As I said, it's widely established, widely researched, and there are literally more academic studies on it than you can ever read in your lifetime. Here's the first thing I found: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/goldin/files/pillpaper.pdf . If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe some economists at Harvard and the NBER. Otherwise, I don't care: the matter is already settled in my mind. Take it or don't.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Delaying life milestones from your early 20s to your early 30s is absolutely the result of widespread use of cheap, effective contraception, and it couldn't happen without it, for both men and women.

Well, since the matter is settled in your mind, and this could not happen without birth control, as a student of early modern Britain, I'm interested in the source of widespread, cheap, effective contraception in the late 16th and early 17th century?
And why does present day Britain lag behind in this field?

 

[Mise]

I'm not sure what you're talking about; I'm talking about the late 20th century, not the 16th or 17th centuries.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well surely, if the delay in these milestones couldn't have happened without widespread use of effective contraceptives, then it stands to reason that Britain must have been using widespread, effective contraceptives for the last 500 years or so.

 

[Mise]

Again, I'm not sure what you're driving at, but if those 5 words are objectionable to you, then I'm happy to remove them. They are not an important part of my post.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The use of contraceptives is not important to your point? What is your point if contraceptives are irrelevant?

 

[Mise]

The use of contraceptives is not important to your point? What is your point if contraceptives are irrelevant?

The 5 words I was referring to were "it couldn't happen without it". If you remove those words, then I assume that whatever cryptic disagreement you are raising would go away.

 

[holy king]

high marriage age in 16th century britain being caused by bad harvests does not contradict high marriage age in 20th century britain being caused by contraceptives in any way.

i dont get what you are arguing about.

 

[Patroklos]

He is saying that the age of marriage and child birth has been shifting later in life for centuries, contraception has not been available for centuries. Its a very steady increase throughout time, thus no single watershed event is responsible for it.

The true reason is the very gradual, steady increase in overall prosperity over time.

The cause of this is obviously not contraceptives, which is why so far not a single shed a single shred of evidence has been provided to back up that claim. Simple declaring "I know it to be so!" does not pass the bar.

I challenge you again to provide a link to unwed pregnancies and marriage, as you are trying to prove unplanned child bearing leads to marriage, not the other way around. Your whole position rets on pregnancy being unplanned or undesirable, yet voluntary marriage before pregnancy in the overwhelming majority of cases directly contradicts you.

Contraception lead to women delaying marriage and childbirth, to women entering higher education in greater numbers, and to women pursuing careers over marriage. All of those things are widely established empirical facts; the phenomenon has been widely studied in economics and in other social sciences, and I am absolutely not going to argue about it. The fact that 50% of the population can now delay childbirth and marriage, and instead pursue longer spells in education and a richer, longer and deeper career explains pretty much all of this stuff. Delaying life milestones from your early 20s to your early 30s is absolutely the result of widespread use of cheap, effective contraception, and it couldn't happen without it, for both men and women.

If you want to learn more about how contraception has changed society already, just do a quick google. As I said, it's widely established, widely researched, and there are literally more academic studies on it than you can ever read in your lifetime. Here's the first thing I found: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/goldin/files/pillpaper.pdf . If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe some economists at Harvard and the NBER. Otherwise, I don't care: the matter is already settled in my mind. Take it or don't.

The link says nothing that backs up your very specific position.

If you are not interested in debate and unwilling to support the position, we will continue on with the logical position I have presented which is up to now completely uncontested. I understand there is not interested in proof or debate as per the above quoted post, so feel no academic need to address my posts on this issue.

There is plenty to discuss outside of this one facet

 

[ParkCungHee]

He is saying that the age of marriage and child birth has been shifting later in life for centuries, contraception has not been available for centuries. Its a very steady increase throughout time, thus no single watershed event is responsible for it.

The true reason is the very gradual, steady increase in overall prosperity over time.

No, not quite, because the rates in the early modern period were comparable to those of today. If we were going to tie it directly to wealth, that would mean there's been no statistically significant increase in wealth since the Elizabethan Era.
Of course, age of first marriage rates declined dramatically in the later modern period and were always much lower in the colonies.

The real matter is that marriage and childbirth are expected to occur after economic independence, the point at which children are their own primary economic caregivers. This point was late in the early modern period as it is today. There was little (outside of the colonies) unsettled land, which meant many farmers had to wait for their inheritance for any property. The industrial revolution changed this, as there was a sudden demand for human capital. A man (and woman) could achieve economic independence (but not wealth) relatively early in life by becoming a wage laborer.
As the opportunities for that decline, the economic circumstances for young men and women begin to resemble those of their early modern counterparts.

 

[Patroklos]

Ah, I see. Definitely a more nuanced look, though still one rooted in prosperity though at the individual level.

The agrarian to industrial to white collar shift probably has even more to do with it. A lawyer doesn't need ten kids to till his fields as soon as possible. The need to produce family labor as soon as possible and on a regular basis is no longer a driver to child raising decisions.

There probably is an upper limit to this trend though, as I certainly don't want to be raising children when I am approaching retirement for instance.

 

[metatron]

[...]

 

[Mise]

FWIW I don't think I have any argument with PCH. Like I said, it wasn't an important part of what I was saying, and I have in any case crossed it out.

Also, I agree that the lasting shift in attitudes toward marriage, sex and pregnancy were vastly important. Whether you classify contraception as a "means" in that shift (and I can see why one might), or as a "cause" (as I do), I agree doesn't matter - I think we're both saying essentially the same thing, just with an emphasis on a different part of the story.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Marriage has nothing to do with maturity, although it used to be believed to be, because divorce was harder to achieve. Getting married, then, was seen as a vital life decision. Since no-fault divorces have come about (meaning, one may divorce without citing specific cause), marriage has lost some of its luster. What has also made it lose some of its luster is that it is no longer necessary for economic survival, especially for women. Until quite recently, you see, the only way for most women to survive was to get married. There were few jobs available to them, and it was considered almost obscene for a woman above a certain age to even be working. Now, women may pursue their own careers, and so there is little incentive to getting married. For men, there were two purposes to marriage. One was that it was considered the only acceptable way to have sex (all other means being regarded as scandalous). The other was children. We now have had the sexual revolution, so it's ok to have sex outside of marriage. And as for children, since marriage is no longer seen as vital, people readily have children outside of wedlock, and there is little stigma attached to it.

With marriage lacking such attractiveness, it tends to get delayed. This is actually rational responsible action on the part of women and men, not irresponsible immature action.