The family model is changing.

[arcolithe]

Thanks for the read.

Might be worth noting, since you mentioned China's "one child" policy there,that there is internal pressure to end the policy, too. A lot of men are looking at lifetime bachelorhood or leaving the country due to the population disparity. I saw a news report on this a few years ago... I think through Vice.com, but might have been another investigative journalism site.

I don't know why arcolithe's article doesn't mention it, but China's 'one child policy' was relaxed to a 'two child policy' at the end of 2015.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015- ... 955448.htm

because most articles aren't complete, usually for persuasive reasons.
THat's why "biasness" in statistics is a big issue, easy to manipulate results to prove your point. I can always say that 100% of workers are Black if I omit every other race lol.

that's why it's good to stick to notable publishing companies, and read the fine print.

Thanks for the read.

Might be worth noting, since you mentioned China's "one child" policy there,that there is internal pressure to end the policy, too. A lot of men are looking at lifetime bachelorhood or leaving the country due to the population disparity. I saw a news report on this a few years ago... I think through Vice.com, but might have been another investigative journalism site.

It was just used as a point of reference to a country being affected by "cultural imperialism", but the article doesn't really make that connection. I was just shooting the shit with that one lol.

[MagicManICT]

I hadn't kept up on the child issue. Not sure if it's necessarily a good thing since China is still so large population vs farmable land. I just remember seeing a new video on economic expansion in China and it discussing the "one child" policy as part of the issue. One well-to-do banker was being interviewed and was saying how even he, a wealthy, productive man, could not find a wife. He discussed a bit more about the economic impact of it all over the long term, too. Thought it might be worth mentioning since it's what the thread is about.

because most articles aren't complete, usually for persuasive reasons.

Guess that's dependent on the author and the goal. Omitted facts leads one to try and draw conclusions about what's missing. When people start drawing conclusions, they're often wrong or misinformed conclusions.

[Jalpha]

sorry for responding late, was a bit busy with school stuff and couldn't find their definitions there.
(summary report)
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats ... s_2007.pdf
Susan (2007) describes single parent and single family to be different, with only 22% of families with children under the age of 15 to be single family. 87% of this group were single-mothers, or 87% of 22% which is ~=19% of families with children under the age of 15 have single mothers. This does not include any family with all children above the age of 15.

Break ups are the most common cause of one-parent families, with children born to unpartnered mothers following. P.S. statistics are typically approximations.

This proves one of my points, which is that the barrier for entry of parenthood is much lower for women than it is for men. Also the proportion is the same, even if the numbers are different. Shifting statistics around doesn't change them. What cannot be shown in these statistics are the number of women who are intentionally being impregnated by a man or men displaying one personality type, but who then select a partner exhibiting different character traits to actually raise them. I will admit my opinion is somewhat biased due to personal experience.

(full statistics report)
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats ... JUSTED.pdf
which I have to assume the paper is written to be statistically significant, as they only state statistical insignificance where it arises.
I encourage you to read pg113, I think you might find it interesting!

Page 113 briefly discusses the narrowing gap in educational attainment between men and women however what it does not discuss is the exhorbitant cost of living in Australia. I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, could you be more concise?

[arcolithe]

Guess that's dependent on the author and the goal. Omitted facts leads one to try and draw conclusions about what's missing. When people start drawing conclusions, they're often wrong or misinformed conclusions.

Educated attempts at drawing conclusions minimizes those chances. Which is usually why I'm a fan of sourcing my material, and asking for sources. Besides, it's fun to look at a set of data or facts (results from statistics, or some other methodology) and come out with different conclusions dependent on the peers. Appreciate you guys checking up on my sources and understanding different meaning from it.

Page 113 briefly discusses the narrowing gap in educational attainment between men and women however what it does not discuss is the exhorbitant cost of living in Australia. I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, could you be more concise?

Yeah, I feel the same with similar studies in Miami, but I remember the cost of milk in Australia was insane, cereal and milk was such a luxury. I just was wondering if you thought this statistic was missing anything to describe: what matters for an Australian to get a better job. It talks about education, sex, age and trends. I nearly wonder if the cost of living outweighed all those factors for a higher income. It's like the salaries I hear in new york city, but then I hear about the cost of living there... it doesn't actually seem worth it to me.