 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / January 2007Stats on age differences on first marriage?
I've searched the internet and I have some clues* but does anybody have a good statistics on the age differences between a man and a woman (or husband and wife) when they get married? For example, what percent of men marry a woman 10 or 20 years their junior? I would appreciate a cite. Ideally if I can find stats for different countries/ cultures that would be even better. Thanks in advance. RL * the clues are generalities such as a number of papers I've found that state divorce is lower for an older man marrying a younger woman, possibly because typically this type of marriage is of a "sugar daddy marrying a young girl", IMO. But what I'm looking for is a histogram of marriage differences, and even better would be one for first marriages and one for second marriages and the age differences between husband and wife at the first and at the second marriage. > I've searched the internet and I have some clues* but does anybody have > a good statistics on the age differences between a man and a woman (or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > marriages and one for second marriages and the age differences between > husband and wife at the first and at the second marriage. No idea about your statistics. I thnk you are probably trying to measure the wrong thing though. For example: if an older man is marrying a younger woman, then they are on average goinhg to have fewer years together (as men are likely to die at younger ages than women also). Presumably that cuts down on divorce a tad. Also, if both partners are very young when married, I think that increases the chance that one or the other is just too immature to maintain a marriage. >> I've searched the internet and I have some clues* but does anybody have >> a good statistics on the age differences between a man and a woman (or [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > increases the chance that one or the other is just too immature to > maintain a marriage. Your first point is good, Doug. It seems to be the general view that women mature more quickly than men, so a younger woman is more likely to be a match for a slightly older man. One of Shakespeare's plays mentions it, so the idea isn't new. A marriage can go wrong if the parties are still maturing. If one has stopped growing but the other hasn't, then what seemed like a perfect match will no longer be one. If both are still maturing, things might be O.K. if they keep growing in the same direction. And another thing: there may be other reasons for staying married, even if the relationship becomes unbearable. One depressed man left his wife for a younger person (a common way of coping.) The author said that however disillusioned the young woman became, economic pressures would make her stay married to him. I think that statistics don't have much relevance to one's choice of a partner. The one they sent Lauri ("OT--I am not making this up") shows just how ridiculous the scientific method can become. The show "Perfect Match" that used to be on TV here - and most of our shows are copies of U.S. ones - was almost as unsuccessful. From the reporting back, most couples had a sensible approach; or the less presentable ones didn't get airtime. But the relationships that developed were very few and far between. If you do want statistics, type "statistics + divorce + age difference" in the search dialog in any search engine. Google had loads. Doug L.  SignatureUgliness is only skin deep. - W.G.P. > I've searched the internet and I have some clues* but does anybody have > a good statistics on the age differences between a man and a woman (or > husband and wife) when they get married? For example, what percent of > men marry a woman 10 or 20 years their junior? Ideally? IT needs to be a good match; screw the age stuff. My first husband was 7 years my elder, we were divorced. It had NOTHING to do with our age. My next long term relationship; he was 11 years my elder. That ended with his violent nature. I'm now married to a man years younger than I. Our differences are what might eventually end our marriage, not our age. I think you're barking up the wrong tree. > Our differences are what might eventually end > our marriage, not our age. I think that the general assumption is that people with great differences in age are more different from each other than are people with similar ages (I believe this assumption to hold in general, but individual cases may differ) >> I've searched the internet and I have some clues* but does anybody have >> a good statistics on the age differences between a man and a woman (or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I disagree with you here. Of course exceptions will exists, but it's silly to assume that all ages are the "same" (which is what you are doing by saying it doesn't matter) And maybe it's more helpful to not put a number on it, but more like "different life stages". You yourself have repeatedly mentioned how your retirement will come long before his - could that possibly affect your thinking on day to day issues (like where to live, work stuff, how you spend, etc?) I'm betting everyone's life stages and age does affect how they look at things. Taking myself, if I was single, I would not want to date anyone under, say, 37 (this is a roundabout number, but I feel it's a good cutoff point for me.... 40 might even be more accurate) Why? I dunno - probably different life goals, different outlook, etc. I think age is somewhat useful in determining this "life stage". In general terms, I wouldn't want someone still "finding themselves" or not sure what they want out of life. I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone 50 dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap as someone 20 dating someone 30 (on average) > I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone 50 > dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap as someone > 20 dating someone 30 (on average) jwb--what do you think of somebody approaching 40 dating, marrying and possibly having children with somebody approaching 20? But she's not a US citizen. But on the other hand she is really good looking (well, so am I, for my age). C'mon people! Don't be hating me now. Judge me not by Western standards (since I'm an expat anyway). Imagination, people, imagination. Peace, Ray > > I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone 50 > > dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap as someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > US citizen. But on the other hand she is really good looking (well, so > am I, for my age). You are probably marrying someone very immature. (And you yourself are likely fairly immature.) As the two of you mature, you may well mature into incompatible mates. I'd worry a lot less about your ages, and a lot more about what is required to make marriages work. I think you're setting yourself (and any children) up for divorce in 7-12 years (not because of age, per se, but because of maturity levels). If that is fine with you and your girl, go to. You talk too much Doug. LOL. Just kidding. Hey Bo found the stat I was looking for (the histogram). Peace, RL On Jan 25, 11:58 am, Doug Anderson > jwb--what do you think of somebody approaching 40 dating, marrying and > possibly having children with somebody approaching 20? But she's not a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > standards (since I'm an expat anyway). Imagination, people, > imagination. It doesn't matter what i think of you. Her not being a US citizen may make a difference. >> jwb--what do you think of somebody approaching 40 dating, marrying and >> possibly having children with somebody approaching 20? But she's not a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Her not being a US citizen may make a difference. It's more likely to make a difference if they stay in wherever she is now. But he said he's an expat, so maybe they will. What I can't figure out is why someone who says that he doesn't care about Western standards would be seeking data to back up a point that should, in theory, not matter to him. Whoever said that you need a lot of data for a histogram was right, and the data for this one is almost certainly not available... and if it is, it's probably U.S. data, since the U.S. is the promised land of statistical miscellany. But it doesn't seem to me that this would be applicable. Actually, the whole thing is, in a weird kind of way, not unlike the person who wanted to know if email was cheating... it's trying to get justification for something that you or others think is wrong. Hey, some 20 year olds marry 40 year olds and are very happy. Certainly if the primary criterion for the 40 year old is attractiveness, then the odds are better, since intelligent, mature conversation or something like that isn't, apparently, important. Every relationship is unique in one way or another, even though there are common themes, and no statistical study can evaluate enough of the individual factor for any couple to give anything other than a wild guess. And the OP already knows is that the wild guess is, it's not all that likely to work out in the long run. So, stop wasting time collecting data, do whatever you're going to do anyway, and invest in learning how to make a marriage work in the long run, instead. > What I can't figure out is why someone who says that he doesn't care > about Western standards would be seeking data to back up a point that > should, in theory, not matter to him. Because I'm a numbers guy. It's a guy thing, like collecting baseball stats. > Whoever said that you need a lot of data for a histogram was right, > and the data for this one is almost certainly not available... and if > it is, it's probably U.S. data, since the U.S. is the promised land of > statistical miscellany. No, see this thread. Bo found some Norwegian data that answered the question (Norway = West to me) > Hey, some 20 year olds marry 40 year olds and are very happy. > Certainly if the primary criterion for the 40 year old is > attractiveness, then the odds are better, since intelligent, mature > conversation or something like that isn't, apparently, important. Right on! If I want conversation I'll go to the library or something. Come to think of it I'll post on the internet. No, the heck with conversation, who cares. A little less conversation, a little more action, like Elvis said in one of his songs. > Every relationship is unique in one way or another, even though there > are common themes, and no statistical study can evaluate enough of the > individual factor for any couple to give anything other than a wild > guess. And the OP already knows is that the wild guess is, it's not > all that likely to work out in the long run. Not really true, you make a common fallacy about "wild guess". You cannot tell if the next coin flip will be a heads or tails, but you do know that it's 50%. Regarding this matter, if guys 20 years older than gals marry and constitute 12.5% of all marriages (say the Norwegian stats in this thread) then you know it's not "abnormal" to the point where you'll be the only person who'se ever done it. This is good because it shows it can be done, has been done, and though the odds are long, it might work for you too. > So, stop wasting time collecting data, do whatever you're going to do > anyway, and invest in learning how to make a marriage work in the long > run, instead. OK, I'll try. But in the long run we'll all dead as the economist Keynes observed, nothing good lasts forever, but you have to chase your dream if you want to be free. RL >> What I can't figure out is why someone who says that he doesn't care >> about Western standards would be seeking data to back up a point that >> should, in theory, not matter to him. > >Because I'm a numbers guy. It's a guy thing, like collecting baseball >stats. Hate to tell you, but collecting numbers is not by any means a guy thing. It's part of what I do all day. >> Whoever said that you need a lot of data for a histogram was right, >> and the data for this one is almost certainly not available... and if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No, see this thread. Bo found some Norwegian data that answered the >question (Norway = West to me) It's interesting, but I'd claim that it's data from so specific a region that it might have little applicability. But that sort of depends on your answers to the questions I ask at the bottom. >> Hey, some 20 year olds marry 40 year olds and are very happy. >> Certainly if the primary criterion for the 40 year old is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >because it shows it can be done, has been done, and though the odds are >long, it might work for you too. Well, I'm an economist and a statistician, so I've got a better idea than you might think about that. I'd be willing to bet that the most likely result of real statistical research (which is not what one study from Norway would be, really) is that marriages with serious age differences are not likely to be successful. But of course, you wouldn't be the only person to do it, and as I said, it's certainly possible that it will be successful. As far as the 50% above, what that really means is that in repeated trials, you'll get heads 50% of the time. So, if the probability of success for marriages with a 20 year age difference is, say, 50%, then in a whole lot of marriages, that should be the true. But it predicts absolutely nothing about a single marriage, any more than the 50% predicts anything about a single coin toss. Which was my original point; it doesn't matter what the research shows; it matters what happens in your particular case. >> So, stop wasting time collecting data, do whatever you're going to do >> anyway, and invest in learning how to make a marriage work in the long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Keynes observed, nothing good lasts forever, but you have to chase your >dream if you want to be free. Well, what Keynes meant was that the government should pursue activist policies to achieve full employment rather than letting the economy adjust itself, so I'm not really sure that applies here. But you have to do what you think right. I have to say that I'm idly curious, though... where are you exactly, is the girl in the same country (and if not, what country is she in), and where would you plan to live? >Well, what Keynes meant was that the government should pursue activist > policies to achieve full employment rather than letting the economy > adjust itself, so I'm not really sure that applies here. Yes, I know (I'm not an economist but I subscribe to The Economist); it was just a play on words, about not waiting for the long term (which is that both people will be old eventually). > But you have to do what you think right. I have to say that I'm idly > curious, though... where are you exactly, is the girl in the same > country (and if not, what country is she in), and where would you plan > to live? Sorry I can't get too specific, as I use this ID for flaming and a few people online actually know who I really am so I rather not tell them my life plans, but we're both outside the US now; and she would like a green card eventually; that is one inducement to marry me. I am independently wealthy and have my own business that I run offshore. As an economist, I'm sure you appreciate that you can trade youth for money, beauty for a kept life, and nobody thinks twice about it. Look at the centimillionaires and billionaires who marry trophy wives several times. So why the hangup about marriages outside the standard deviation as shown by the Norway histogram (we can call them 'deviant marriages')? Does everybody have to marry their mother, Noah Ark style, with no more than 3.5 years difference in age between them and a median age of 24? If so, you are very traditional, or bound to tradition, as the French historian Braudel calls the 'heavy hand of history'. I would argue this sort of thing is for the lumpen proleteriat anyway; I have always defied the odds, and economically speaking am in the top 1%, so arguably these rules don't really apply to me. As for marriage not succeeding, I think half fail even with people roughly the same age, and besides my definition of success is to have fun, hopefully have kids, and if she wants to part ways after that--with my money from her prenuptial--that's OK, it's all been discounted to present value as they say. Nothing good lasts forever. Offtopic I'm mildly curious--what do you think of the Keynes versus von Mieses/Hayek (Austrian) schools of thought, and with today's deflationary environment do you think Keynes is less relevant than in the days of post-WWII statism, and the Austrian school more relevant (as some have argued)? I wish, but doubt it myself. I frankly think people believe too much in cause and effect, when often there is none--specifically that the monetary authorities and/or the POTUS 'control' the economy--when a lot of times, unless they specifically try to engineer a recession and/or boom with drastic money supply changes--they are more like the ant at the head of the log floating downstream thinking it controls the direction of the log. Did Keynes stimulation of the economy by printing money ever really work? It might be a myth like some say the Paul Voulker "engineered recession" of the early 80s was. RL >Sorry I can't get too specific, as I use this ID for flaming and a few >people online actually know who I really am so I rather not tell them [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >that--with my money from her prenuptial--that's OK, it's all been >discounted to present value as they say. Nothing good lasts forever. I don't have any intrinsic problem with the idea of trading money/security/green card for youth and beauty as long as everyone involved understands what's going on (although I'm quite sure that the whole concept appalls lots of people and that you'll get plenty of flames over it). I mean, I pretty much think that marriages that succeed are about having the right incentive sets, anyway, and the fact of the matter is that we all maximize utility in different ways, so if it works for everyone involved, I'd say that it has as much chance as any other marriage. The fact of the matter is that people have been doing this for centuries; it's only been the last century or so that we've gotten this idea of romantic love over all.... which as often as not ends up as something that doesn't last in the long run. I mean, look at the plot of every Regency romance; it's not the callow youth who gets the 17 year old girl; it's the handsome older Duke with the fortune. And no one gasps in horror. I think that if you're going into this with the attitude that you say above... have some fun for a while, etc.... then what the hell, I suppose, although I'm a little less comfortable when you throw kids into that mix, because I do think that children change the equations in substantive ways. >Offtopic I'm mildly curious--what do you think of the Keynes versus von >Mieses/Hayek (Austrian) schools of thought, and with today's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >might be a myth like some say the Paul Voulker "engineered recession" >of the early 80s was. Well, there's a bunch of stuff there. I'm not an Austrian; I don't really buy into most of that school of thought. I'd characterize the current economic environment as something like intensely globally competitive rather than deflationary; it's only in Japan that we've seen sustained deflation (and that was a seriously overinflated economy that refused to make appropriate choices to end the recession earlier). Keynes really argued that the government should spend more money, not print more money, two distinctly different things. And he was and remains right in a way. If you want to stimulate the economy, a concrete way of doing it is to buy more stuff, either by having the government buy it directly or by cutting taxes. It works, BUT you can't do it by just printing money or you create inflation. So you have to spend your way out of recessions and save your way out of inflations, but the government likes spending a whole lot more than saving, so it doesn't work exactly as Keynes had in mind. The government and the central bank and sort of like a really HUGE ant at the top of the log. They make a difference, and if they kick their little feet enough, they may have a true impact, but it's not at all fine-tuning, especially with fiscal policy. I'm fundamentally a monetarist, at least in the sense that I think that money is usually the most effective policy tool but that you can't easily fine-tune the economy. The Volker disinflation was no myth, and certainly the Fed has a broad impact on the economy. But it's like steering an oil tanker.... you'd better have a damn good idea where you want it to go, because you've got to start turning way ahead of time. > Keynes really argued that the government should spend more money, not > print more money, two distinctly different things. Maybe I was thinking of some later Keynesian teachings--perhaps from Joan Robinson? I dunno. > The Volker disinflation was no myth, and certainly the Fed > has a broad impact on the economy. Somebody that won a Nobel Prize in economics disagrees with you. Below is the blurb. Note the mention of Volker. But famous economist Mankiw (who has a large family and loves it BTW) criticised this piece on his website. Final parting shot: perhaps the beautiful girl marries an old goat 20 years older than her for a Green Card, but falls madly in love later? Stranger things have happened, and it's fun (for me) to act out this hypothesis. RL Wall Street Journal Five Macroeconomic Myths By EDWARD C. PRESCOTT December 11, 2006; Page A18 The sky is not falling. No need to panic and start playing around with all sorts of policy responses. Despite the impression created by some economic pundits, the U.S. economy is not a delicate little machine that needs to be fine-tuned with exact precision by benevolent policymakers to keep from breaking down. Rather, it is large and complex, with millions of people making billions of decisions every day to improve their lives, the lives of their families and the health of their businesses. On the one hand, it's difficult to screw up all these well-intentioned people by crafting bad policy, but, on the other hand, it is of course entirely possible to do so. And once things are broken, they are much harder to fix. For example, all those doomsayers predicting a recession will get their wish if taxes are suddenly raised, new productivity-strangling regulations are enacted, the U.S. turns against free trade, or some combination thereof. Otherwise, we should expect 3% real growth, based on 2% increases in productivity and 1% population growth. This economy is fundamentally sound. [Illustration] So we have to be careful that we don't believe everything we read in the papers. Things are never as bad as the last data that was released, nor are they as good. Likewise, policy should not be revised at every turn, nor rules changed by political whim. Meaning, we should be careful about accepting conventional wisdom as, well, being wise. One of the great disciplines of economics is that it challenges us to question status quo thinking. So let's take a look at five pillars of contemporary conventional wisdom that have current standing, and see how well they hold up. Myth No. 1: Monetary policy causes booms and busts. Greg Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, wrote the following in a 2002 paper: "No aspect of U.S. policy in the 1990s is more widely hailed as a success than monetary policy. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is often viewed as a miracle worker." Or, as Mr. Mankiw later asks, was Mr. Greenspan just lucky? One of the mysteries of the 1990s is how to explain the economic boom when the increase in capital investments -- as measured by the national accounts -- grew at a subdued pace. The numbers simply don't add up. However, it turns out that something special happened in the 1990s, and it wasn't monetary policy. In a recent paper, Minneapolis Fed senior economist Ellen McGrattan and I show that intangible capital investment -- including R&D, developing new markets, building new business organizations and clientele -- was above normal by 4% of GDP in the late 1990s. This difference is key to understanding growth rates in the 1990s: Output, correctly measured, increased 8% relative to trend between 1991 and 1999, which is much bigger than the U.S. national accounts number of 4%. Associated with this boom in unmeasured investment is the huge amount of unmeasured savings that showed up in the wealth statistics as capital gains. This was the people's boom, the risk-takers' boom. We should hang gold medals around these entrepreneurs' necks. So indeed, it does seem that Mr. Greenspan was lucky in that a boom happened under his watch; but we can at least say that he did a pretty good job of keeping inflation in check. Here's hoping for the same performance from our current chairman. What about busts? Let's begin with the assumption that tight monetary policy caused the recession of 1978-1982. This myth is so firmly entrenched that I could have called this downturn the "Volcker recession" and readers would have understood my reference. To accept the myth, you have to accept a consistent relationship between monetary policy and economic activity -- and as we've just seen, this relationship is simply not evident in the data. Between 1975 and 1980, the inflation-corrected federal funds rate was low; at the same time, output trended upward until late 1978. So far, things look somewhat promising for the mythmakers. But looking closer at the data we see that output began its downward trend in late 1979 while monetary policy was still easy through most of 1980. Also, output continued its decline through 1982, when it began to climb at a time when monetary policy remained tight. These facts do not square with conventional wisdom. Our obsession with monetary policy in the conduct of the real economy is misplaced. One caveat: I am not saying that there are no real costs to inflation -- there certainly are. And if we get too much inflation we can exact high costs on an economy (witness Argentina as an example). However, I am talking here of the vast majority of industrialized countries who live in a low-inflation regime and who are in no danger of slipping into hyperinflation. It is simply impossible to make a grave mistake when we're talking about movements of 25 basis points These facts do not square with conventional wisdom. Our obsession with monetary policy in the conduct of the real economy is misplaced. >Somebody that won a Nobel Prize in economics disagrees with you. Below >is the blurb. Note the mention of Volker. But famous economist Mankiw >(who has a large family and loves it BTW) criticised this piece on his >website. Sure, but lots of people who won Nobel Prizes in economics agree with me, too! That's the nature of economics... remember that Harry Truman said something like, he wanted an economist with only one hand. Note that your article says basically what I did... you can't fine-tune the economy, and really, most of the time, you shouldn't try. True monetarists (like Milton Friedman, if you want to name-drop a few more Nobel prize guys) think that appropriate monetary policy is a simple rule, no fine-tuning or activist policy at all. The Volker part depends a LOT on how you measure things, so I'd take Prescott's opinion with a huge grain of salt. Greg Mankiw is a really smart guy, and so is Ed Lazear, the current head of the Council of Economic Advisors... he's one of the smartest people I've ever met. But on a lot of these things, smart people can reasonably disagree. >Final parting shot: perhaps the beautiful girl marries an old goat 20 >years older than her for a Green Card, but falls madly in love later? >Stranger things have happened, and it's fun (for me) to act out this >hypothesis. It could certainly happen. I wish you the best of luck, and I actually don't think that you're in the old goat league here. > Prescott's opinion with a huge grain of salt. Greg Mankiw is a really > smart guy, and so is Ed Lazear, the current head of the Council of > Economic Advisors... he's one of the smartest people I've ever met. > But on a lot of these things, smart people can reasonably disagree. Nice use of name dropping Nina. LOL. I once met...no I once saw Dr. Friedman walking by on the Stanford campus. I was reading his book "Free to Choose" at the time, and I had it with me, and for a minute I thought he thought I was trying to get an autograph and he hesistated as if expecting me to ask him to sign it. That's my only claim to economics fame. > >Final parting shot: perhaps the beautiful girl marries an old goat 20 > >years older than her for a Green Card, but falls madly in love later? > I wish you the best of luck, and I > actually don't think that you're in the old goat league here. That's sweet. Thanks. I feel like a horny old goat though. I'd hate to rob the cradle, but this girl seems to want it as much as I do. Maybe we'll date a tad longer. The way I figure it, if she has my baby, what incentive is there for her to leave? I'm not that bad a person either; she could do worse, but teaching wisdom to a 20 something is futile (I'm thinking of when I was her age--I listened to nobody on social matters and learned only from my own experiences). But if she has a fit to leave me (after we get married), it will soon become apparent and the worse that will happen is that we'll hopefully have a nice casual and fun relationship for the 2 years it takes to get a green card. Then I'll look for somebody else, even younger. LOL. I'm rotten. RL >> Prescott's opinion with a huge grain of salt. Greg Mankiw is a really >> smart guy, and so is Ed Lazear, the current head of the Council of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >as if expecting me to ask him to sign it. That's my only claim to >economics fame. Oh, I actually didn't mean it in a name-dropping way; academic economics is a fairly small world, and so it's hard to live in it at all without knowing a few famous people (famous in an econ kind of way, anyway). I do know Ed Lazear a bit; it actually startles the hell out of me when I see him on tv these days. The person who made me stop in my tracks was Alan Greenspan, though... I didn't meet him exactly, but I was in a very small group of people he talked to, shortly before he retired, and it's the only time that I ever had that celebrity kind of feeling.... you know, that oh-my-god-it's-whoever-in the-same-room-with-ME kind of thing. You can have all these Hollywood guys; I like the smart people. >> >Final parting shot: perhaps the beautiful girl marries an old goat 20 >> >years older than her for a Green Card, but falls madly in love later? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >a green card. Then I'll look for somebody else, even younger. LOL. >I'm rotten. No, you're honest. I find that pretty refreshing. If you were maintaining that this was undying love and the sweet young thing was just interested in true love and not a green card, I'd be giving you a hard time... well, actually, I'd have deleted the whole thread and moved on, but I can't resist a guy who mentions Keynes. ;-) Hey, when I was 19, I was seeing a guy who was 40, and while I'm incredibly glad that the relationship didn't work out, the reasons why it would have been a bad idea had nothing at all to do with his age. There isn't any reason why this *can't* work, although certainly, anyone would have a right to be skeptical. You know, apropos of what you said in the last post, some good things DO last. Not all of them, but the ones that do are terrific. On a slightly related note, though... getting a K-1 or K-3 visa is a long haul, so it's a good idea to be pretty damn sure that you want to before you head down that road. I'm almost at the end of that myself; my husband is from the UK, and it's been a long and very, very stressful process. > On 26 Jan 2007 12:16:50 -0800, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> > > moved on, but I can't resist a guy who mentions Keynes. ;-) But I hate Keynes, for the way he was misused by politicians later. Keynes himself seems to have discovered the theory that you can fool people into believing there's prosperity by spending money (if you believe that's ever worked), and that workers, like sellers in real estate, don't cut prices (their wages). Something about the market for lemons also comes to mind. > Hey, when I was 19, I was seeing a guy who was 40, and while I'm > incredibly glad that the relationship didn't work out, the reasons why > it would have been a bad idea had nothing at all to do with his age. That's nice, but age is a factor biologically. > There isn't any reason why this *can't* work, although certainly, > anyone would have a right to be skeptical. You know, apropos of what > you said in the last post, some good things DO last. Not all of them, > but the ones that do are terrific. Here's hoping. > On a slightly related note, though... getting a K-1 or K-3 visa is a > long haul, so it's a good idea to be pretty damn sure that you want to > before you head down that road. I'm almost at the end of that myself; > my husband is from the UK, and it's been a long and very, very > stressful process. Stress is all in your mind I believe. Who cares? Do what you want, and let the lawyers sort it out later. That said, I have my own business and make enough money so I don't care one way or the other. As long as I don't marry a psycho, that's my only concern. Nice chatting with you. RL >> On 26 Jan 2007 12:16:50 -0800, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >estate, don't cut prices (their wages). Something about the market >for lemons also comes to mind. The market for lemons is something totally different, whole different age of economics. I'm not at all a Keynesian, but you can't hate him for the way he was misused later! You can hate the people who misused him, though. Keynes' real contributions were many... too many to list here... but in some ways the primary one was just thinking about the economy in a different way, understanding that the economy wasn't going to fix itself in an incredibly short time, as the classical economists believed, and thus that the government sometimes needed to act. I think your comment about believing in prosperity by spending money is a little off track; what he really argued was that government spending creates a multiplier effect that magnifies throughout the economy, and that's arguably quite true, especially in the period he was writing. Doesn't work well in Japan today, because no one wants to spend money, but that's a different story... Of course, he also argued that the best way for the government to actually spend the money was by sort of leaving it around to be randomly discovered rather than tying it to government programs that are hard to cut later, but that's another story. >> Hey, when I was 19, I was seeing a guy who was 40, and while I'm >> incredibly glad that the relationship didn't work out, the reasons why >> it would have been a bad idea had nothing at all to do with his age. > >That's nice, but age is a factor biologically. Sure, but you're 40, not nearly dead. These days, 40 is nothing. Maybe this will be an issue when you're 80 and she's 60... but then again, maybe not. Good incentive to take care of your health, though. I'd be worrying a lot more about the psychological changes that are likely to take place over time than the physical ones. >> On a slightly related note, though... getting a K-1 or K-3 visa is a >> long haul, so it's a good idea to be pretty damn sure that you want to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >business and make enough money so I don't care one way or the other. >As long as I don't marry a psycho, that's my only concern. Sometimes, the last bit is the hardest to tell of all, unfortunately. Anyway, I'm just saying, in case you haven't, that it's wise to check out immigration procedures well in advance. It takes a long time just to be able to enter the US with someone you've married abroad. > > Something about the marketfor lemons also comes to mind. > The market for lemons is something totally different, whole different > age of economics. Yes I know; I'm mixing my metaphors. Saying that cutting prices is not an option for many workers (tradition bound), not unlike cutting prices on a new car (unless it's a GM or Ford); otherwise the market should clear at some price and there should be no unemployment (save what's structural due to people moving around, dying industries, etc). > I'm not at all a Keynesian, but you can't hate him > for the way he was misused later! You can hate the people who misused [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > economists believed, and thus that the government sometimes needed to > act. That's why I hate him--he overturned Say's Law. But I agree, at the time (1930s), with "Labour" acting as a block against "Capital", unions vs. consolidating Big Business, that Keynes 'jump start' solution seemed to work (but I have reservations--has anybody ever really seen if Keynes solutions worked? I recall there was a mini- recession even after FDR's "NRA" "make work"/ Keynesian solutions were adopted. Perhaps WWII was the ultimate Keynesian multiplier.) > I think your comment about believing in prosperity by spending > money is a little off track; what he really argued was that government > spending creates a multiplier effect that magnifies throughout the > economy, and that's arguably quite true, especially in the period he > was writing. But this is not really Keynes contribution is it? The multiplier effect, which is also known in math as a geometric series (http:// www.mathpages.com/home/kmath449.htm) is pretty well known. Perhaps government rather than private industry doing the spending is the key...but I agree with the founder of Montgomery Ward, who locked himself in his HQ's rather than submit to FDR's communist spending schemes, LOL! Read James Grant. Oh if you like Keynes read his biographer, Robert Skidelsky, three volume tome (I hear it's good). Of course you know about Keynes private life I'm sure (he was bi). > Doesn't work well in Japan today, because no one wants > to spend money, but that's a different story... But why? Japan might be a test tube for the US's future...population aging, they get tight with their dollars, the 70% consumer driven US economy seizes up...then the US government vainly tries to spend it's way out of the "liquidity trap" I believe it's called, dropping money from helicopters, neo-Keynesian, Ben B style, to break the deflationary spiral. To no effect. Sounds like a Paul Erdman financial thriller. I'm stockpiling food now! > Of course, he also > argued that the best way for the government to actually spend the > money was by sort of leaving it around to be randomly discovered > rather than tying it to government programs that are hard to cut > later, but that's another story. Or dropping it from the sky? I thought that was his metaphor, but maybe it was our current Fed. Reserve chairperson Ben's. Burying the money, and having people dig holes to find it was his metaphor I think. > >That's nice, but age is a factor biologically. > Sure, but you're 40, not nearly dead. These days, 40 is nothing. Cool. She's 20. But I have a few old goat tricks up my sleeve, if she's a sex maniac like my last girlfriend. Here's hoping... > >As long as I don't marry a psycho, that's my only concern.S > Sometimes, the last bit is the hardest to tell of all, unfortunately. This is key. Nut cases in their 20s. As opposed to nut cases in their 40s, LOL. Youth versus old age, one of the great themes in literature as the Masterpiece Theatre guy would say. > Anyway, I'm just saying, in case you haven't, that it's wise to check > out immigration procedures well in advance. It takes a long time just > to be able to enter the US with someone you've married abroad. I don't care about entering the US, but she does. And I hear it's 2 years. But it plays into my hand if it takes a long time (more than 2 years), since by then she might really fall in love with me and/or have kids, then she's TRAPPED! hahaha! (or she wants to be trapped) BTW I hardly even know this girl yet, but just talking hypotheticals. Thanks for the chat, this is getting addictive...better stop here. Ray >That's why I hate him--he overturned Say's Law. But I agree, at the >time (1930s), with "Labour" acting as a block against "Capital", [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >recession even after FDR's "NRA" "make work"/ Keynesian solutions were >adopted. Perhaps WWII was the ultimate Keynesian multiplier.) You can't really hate someone for overturning something that wasn't true... after all, remember that Keynes was writing during the Great Depression, when clearly supply was NOT creating it's own demand, etc. WWII really was the Keynesian test, in a sense... in the sense that it was the thing that really brought the US out of the Depression. The FDR programs were pretty minor, although in some sense a step in the right direction at the time (I should add, having said that, that I am NOT in general an advocate of government spending as a way of bailing out recessions, but it was one of the only things that would have been particularly effective then). >> I think your comment about believing in prosperity by spending >> money is a little off track; what he really argued was that government [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >biographer, Robert Skidelsky, three volume tome (I hear it's good). >Of course you know about Keynes private life I'm sure (he was bi). I've read the first two volumes; it's pretty good. He was an interesting guy who lived an interesting life, regardless of anything else. The multiplier effect in economics is certainly Keynes' contribution, although of course mathematically it's not exactly a mystery.... and it was Samuelson and others who really put the math to Keynes' ideas. I used to teach a history of economic thought class, so I've spent a lot of time talking about this... it's fun to do it again; I don't get to trot out economic historical trivia that much. I have to say that personally, as I said above, I'm totally with you on the private spending thing; I'd much rather have industry spending the money that the government, and of course, multipliers work no matter who's doing the spending. But there are clearly times when industry doesn't spend, for whatever reasons, and thus perhaps a role for some sort of policy. >> Doesn't work well in Japan today, because no one wants >> to spend money, but that's a different story... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >deflationary spiral. To no effect. Sounds like a Paul Erdman >financial thriller. I'm stockpiling food now! Well, the last decade of Japan's economy has been pretty much a mystery to a lot of people, and I've only studied it in passing, but... my take on it is that the liquidity trap has been the result of a number of things. One is a consumer base with a low propensity to consume, unlike the US, and thus stimulative packages aimed at consumers have had no effect. The second reason is banks, and the unwillingness to write off bad loans made during the real estate boom in the late 80s, which limited their ability to lend and seriously lengthened the financial crisis. The third is a government more afraid of debt than recession and thus unwilling to pursue more active policies (not that I'm sure that they would have worked). Some, like Paul Krugman, argued too that the Bank of Japan should have increased the money supply further... nominal interest rates couldn't have gone any lower, but real interest rates could have, and that might have stimulated investment. In a deflationary environment, a little inflation is actually a good thing, sometimes. The robust US financial markets, which have attracted Japanese capital, haven't helped a whole lot, either. >> Of course, he also >> argued that the best way for the government to actually spend the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >money, and having people dig holes to find it was his metaphor I >think. Yeah, I think it was Keynes with the bottles and I can't remember who with the helicopter drop... I always associate the latter with my grad school professor because he used to say that all the time, and thus I can't remember who actually said it. >> Anyway, I'm just saying, in case you haven't, that it's wise to check >> out immigration procedures well in advance. It takes a long time just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >have kids, then she's TRAPPED! hahaha! (or she wants to be trapped) >BTW I hardly even know this girl yet, but just talking hypotheticals. Wow, really? I was under the impression that this was something a little farther advanced. It takes about 9 months or so to get a K-3 visa, unless she's from someplace like Iraq, in which case it would take longer probably. And then maybe a year to get a green card once you reenter the US. >Thanks for the chat, this is getting addictive...better stop here. I've got to ask, how is it that you are so widely read in econ? Frankly, it's a hell of a novelty to me to run across someone who isn't an academic economist (and even who is) who remembers things like Keynes and the buying bottles thing. > That's sweet. Thanks. I feel like a horny old goat though. I'd hate > to rob the cradle, but this girl seems to want it as much as I do. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have a nice casual and fun relationship for the 2 years it takes to get > a green card. You're wise to think about it this way. Just make sure not to have a baby until the green card is in her hands! It'll be irresponsible to bring a child to the world when you aren't sure about the stability of your marriage. Other than that, enjoy your life but don't be so sure that the only possible scenarios are the ones that you can imagine right now. My cousin's BIL (single, rich, and good looking at 46) fell madly in love and married a beautiful 22 year old. Less than two years into the marriage he fell in love with.... hold your breath.... a 52 year old woman, divorced the young wife (without a prenup - ouch!), and is now happily married for about 4 years. He says that after a few months of marriage to the youngen he felt like a dead man. :-) > Other than that, enjoy your life but don't be so sure > that the only possible scenarios are the ones that you can imagine right [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > happily married for about 4 years. He says that after a few months of > marriage to the youngen he felt like a dead man. :-) Damn that's bizarre. Reminds me of a guy I know who left his beautiful younger wife and lots of kids for a divorced older woman. I guess love is blind, or blinds you, or something. Freaky. Thanks for the chat. Enough talk; time to act. RL >> Well, what Keynes meant was that the government should pursue >> activist policies to achieve full employment rather than letting the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > that--with my money from her prenuptial--that's OK, it's all been > discounted to present value as they say. Nothing good lasts forever. As long as you both know the score I don't see a problem with you contracing what seems like an arranged marriage. I do think your attitude with respect to bringing children into the mix is cavalier to say the least. I don't want to know the answer to this question myself but I think you should ask yourself whether you are attracted to women 10 to 15 years older than your potential wife is now. If you are not you could be setting up a situation where you have little reason to stay with her once the bloom is off the rose and your children will have parents who have little to say to each other, even if they do stay together. Can you not do better for them, if not for yourself? Tai > >Well, what Keynes meant was that the government should pursue activist > > policies to achieve full employment rather than letting the economy [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > deviation as shown by the Norway histogram (we can call them 'deviant > marriages')? Who is hung up on it? And why is Norway your benchmark? More to the point, in a marriage such as you describe, what is the incentive to remain married for the long term? After all, you are marrying for youth, which doesn't ask, she is marrying for a green card, which she'll get at some point, and be free to divorce you. Now, maybe you don't care about the marriage lasting, but IMO if you are going to have kids, you should care. > Sorry I can't get too specific, as I use this ID for flaming and a few > people online actually know who I really am so I rather not tell them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an economist, I'm sure you appreciate that you can trade youth for > money, beauty for a kept life, and nobody thinks twice about it. iNcredible nouveau riche propaganda. we do think TWICe and THRICE about it you scrotumsucker. ' We do think twice. YOU LOOK. Don't tell ANYONE to lok at anything until you learn to see even one minor thing for yourself. Look > at the centimillionaires and billionaires who marry trophy wives > several times. So why the hangup about marriages outside the standard > deviation as shown by the Norway histogram (we can call them 'deviant > marriages')? You know you can justify anytheeng you want with MONEy. $$$$. That's your value system - so be it. Good luck in the future. You STEAL from the future, with your worthless ideas. Does everybody have to marry their mother, Noah Ark > style, You are a sick mofo that your mind runs to incest at the first turn. with no more than 3.5 years difference in age between them and a > median age of 24? If so, you are very traditional, or bound to > tradition, as the French historian Braudel calls the 'heavy hand of > history'. I would argue this sort of thing is for the lumpen > proleteriat anyway; I have always defied the odds, Not really and not at all. Or you wouldn't be writing your crap on usent. and economically > speaking am in the top 1%, so arguably these rules don't really apply > to me. Yeah right. I'm guessing that this tripe works for a lot of babes for awhile. I bet you can impersonate a heterosexual partner for at least seven weeks. As for marriage not succeeding, I think half fail even with > people roughly the same age, and besides my definition of success is to > have fun, hopefully have kids, and if she wants to part ways after > that--with my money from her prenuptial--that's OK, it's all been > discounted to present value as they say. Nothing good lasts forever.\ And your sperm thereby live on. Completely lacking in something - but YAWN - I wonder what it is??? YOu know what? People who want to save everybody are just too kind. \ No one should care about you - and if they do, they're trash like you. > Offtopic I'm mildly curious--what do you think of the Keynes versus von > Mieses/Hayek (Austrian) schools of thought, and with today's > deflationary environment do you think Keynes is less relevant than in > the days of post-WWII statism, and the Austrian school more relevant > (as some have argued)? Keynes leads more directly to the modern psychology - but not via economics, which is (fortunately) something you'll never understand - not if you live a thousand years (which you won't). Figure it out yourself - but (here's a clue) - Hayek is not going to be heeded. Does that make a difference to you? It should. Hayek, like you, will disappear without a trace. And whether or not Keynes is correct - he is immortal. You, whether you breed or not, are not immortal. Your dead in thewater. I wish, but doubt it myself. I frankly think > people believe too much in cause and effect, \\ AS IF. when often there is > none--specifically that the monetary authorities and/or the POTUS > 'control' the economy--\\ AS IF. I gots me a loon here peopel - this person is a LOON. when a lot of times, unless they specifically > try to engineer a recession and/or boom with drastic money supply > changes--they are more like the ant at the head of the log floating > downstream thinking it controls the direction of the log. \\ Which is a huge bonus given that you have no organ of thought at all whatsoever. Rich but stupid and unhappy. You REEK. Did Keynes > stimulation of the economy by printing money ever really work? It > might be a myth like some say the Paul Voulker "engineered recession" > of the early 80s was. Like I engineered your stink hand. Or the fact that you lie in bed all day rubbing your butthole with your hand, hoping that you will get something from it. You're one sorry dude, you a.s. > RL >>> jwb--what do you think of somebody approaching 40 dating, marrying and >>> possibly having children with somebody approaching 20? But she's not a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What I can't figure out is why someone who says that he doesn't care > about Western standards... ??? What exactly are "Western standards"??? > >>> jwb--what do you think of somebody approaching 40 dating, marrying and > >>> possibly having children with somebody approaching 20? But she's not a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ??? What exactly are "Western standards"??? Cowboy boots, Levis, snap front shirt, bandanna, and Stetson. GGG SignatureTo contact me: GGGNH@yahoo.com > > Ideally? IT needs to be a good match; screw the age stuff. My first > > husband was 7 years my elder, we were divorced. It had NOTHING to do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I disagree with you here. Of course exceptions will exists, but it's silly > to assume that all ages are the "same" (which is what you are doing by > saying it doesn't matter) And maybe it's more helpful to not put a number on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stuff, how you spend, etc?) I'm betting everyone's life stages and age does > affect how they look at things. We're about due for a good disagreement, so here goes :-) Just kidding. I'm talking about myself, not everyone else. I regard to your retirement point; honestly JWB, if our marriage were strong, if we didn't have so many friggin unresolved issues, I don't think that retirement would be an issue. We can't agree on where to live, work stuff how to spend without retirement being on the plate! With all due respect, if he had started working when most single men start working, saving money, spending it wisely, etc etc etc; we'd be able to retire far sooner. It wasn't until he met me, we married and had a child that he got serious about working. In fact, when we had our long distance relationship, we disagreed on how many visits we should have and right there is where MY credit cards were used. I was talked into too many visits and SHOULD have taken the bull by the horns right then and there, but I didn't. So I"m partially responsible. But there were also a lot of secrets in the closet that I was unaware of (past debt, bad credit history, and several other things that I was not told before we married). So I guess I'm sticking to my point that it's more about the relationship than it is about age. What's her name...Demi Moore and what's his name Kutcher something....big age difference but they have enough money to live where they want, don't have to worry about retiring etc. Of course I have no idea what their marriage is like. > Taking myself, if I was single, I would not want to date anyone under, say, > 37 (this is a roundabout number, but I feel it's a good cutoff point for > me.... 40 might even be more accurate) Why? I dunno - probably different > life goals, different outlook, etc. I think age is somewhat useful in > determining this "life stage". In general terms, I wouldn't want someone > still "finding themselves" or not sure what they want out of life. If I were single...I'd find a man who wanted to meet me once a week, take me out for a nice dinner or cook for me, have wild sex all night and say goodbye in the morning. I'd then have 6 days to paint, read, write, paticpate in ASM (teehee), and walk along the beach and collect shells. Get married again? I think not. No, I know not :-) > I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone 50 > dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap as someone > 20 dating someone 30 (on average)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Well, we're 53 and 47 (he just turned that age and I'll be 54 in June). That's not a big difference yet we like entirely different music, food, movies, weather and I"m sure I could go on. I don't think it's age. My sister is the same age as husband and we like all of the same things. She is married to a man 14 years her elder. They are in the same profession (which is a good thing) but they are opposites regarding music, movies, sports (she hates them like I do :-) BUT, they are on the same team when it comes to money, retirement, kids/college, etc. I guess you and I just won't agree about the age thing. That's okay dear. :-) > Well, we're 53 and 47 (he just turned that age and I'll be 54 in June). > That's not a big difference yet we like entirely different music, > food, movies, weather and I"m sure I could go on. I I didn't realize that you were so close in age. I was under the impression that it was like 10-12 years. >I guess you and I just won't agree about the age thing. That's okay dear. :-) Yes, that's fine :) >If I were single...I'd find a man who wanted to meet me once a week, >take me out for a nice dinner or cook for me, have wild sex all night >and say goodbye in the morning. I'd then have 6 days to paint, read, >write, paticpate in ASM (teehee), and walk along the beach and collect >shells. Get married again? I think not. No, I know not :-) Heh........yeah, being single ain't all bad. Lauri in WA >>If I were single...I'd find a man who wanted to meet me once a week, >>take me out for a nice dinner or cook for me, have wild sex all night >>and say goodbye in the morning. I'd then have 6 days to paint, read, >>write, paticpate in ASM (teehee), and walk along the beach and collect >>shells. Get married again? I think not. No, I know not :-) IOW, a boy-toy? Problem is, sooner or later, the guy will start thinking it was a meaningful relationship, then want exclusivity, go out to do stuff (museums perhaps), expect to you to use the L-word and make a commmitment. :-( >>> If I were single...I'd find a man who wanted to meet me once a week, >>> take me out for a nice dinner or cook for me, have wild sex all night [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > perhaps), > expect to you to use the L-word and make a commmitment. :-( Who says that a once-a-week romance isn't desirable or a commitment? The woman I've been seeing for the past few years seems to think the above mentioned arrangement would be ideal for her, and I tend to agree. The only pressure toward marriage would be the economics of growing older and maintaining two separate households while venturing toward retirement and fixed income living. Besides, wild sex all night, once a week would be a vast improvement over nothing-a-month that many posters complain of here. Cheers, Larry G. SignatureYour mind is a terrible thing to waste - TURN OFF YOUR TV! A once a week romance might appeal to some. But not to others. I'm guessing the ration is either genetically determinined or decided by the gods. A once a week romance is SHALLOW no matter how you look at it, though - compared to the more cost-saving, cozy arrangement of EVERY DAY. Shallow = rich, you see? In your view. > A once a week romance might appeal to some. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Shallow = rich, you see? In your view. I don't see. Who does see? Who are you replying to? >>>If I were single...I'd find a man who wanted to meet me once a week, >>>take me out for a nice dinner or cook for me, have wild sex all night [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >IOW, a boy-toy? I think she's talking about what we used to call in ASD "J'NOLA", which is an acronym for "Janie's New Order Living Arrangement." We used that acroynm to represent the type of relationship where you would hang out with each other, have a meaningful romantic relationship, fun sleepovers with each other, but still maintain an independant home and some autonomy. Actually sounds pretty good to me. >Problem is, sooner or later, the guy will start thinking it was a meaningful >relationship, then want exclusivity, go out to do stuff (museums perhaps), >expect to you to use the L-word and make a commmitment. :-( Yeah, that's the fly in the ointment. ;) Lauri in WA >>>> If I were single...I'd find a man who wanted to meet me once a week, >>>> take me out for a nice dinner or cook for me, have wild sex all night [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > independant home and some autonomy. Actually sounds pretty good to > me. Except, with J'NOLA, you're still stuck cleaning out the catbox 100% of the time. I mean, screw romance and sleepovers. The reason I'm married is so that someone will clean up the kitchen after dinner and remembers to feed the fish. (If one's husband doesn't clean up the kitchen or feed the fish, it's time for a divorce) > The reason I'm married is so that someone will clean > up the kitchen after dinner and remembers to feed the > fish. (If one's husband doesn't clean up the kitchen or > feed the fish, it's time for a divorce) An one of my brother's ex-wives (there are three) said to me one that living alone was not easy... that all the chores that they shared, she now had to do herself, and if there was anything needed fixing, there was no guy she could count on for a half-assed repair. More important than sex, she said, was a guys willingness to pitch-in. :-) =R= >> The reason I'm married is so that someone will clean >> up the kitchen after dinner and remembers to feed the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >count on for a half-assed repair. More important than >sex, she said, was a guys willingness to pitch-in. :-) =R= Most of the time, I find the extra work of having to do everything myself less of a hassle than living with an antagonistic, critical person. But there are times when I want to cry, because.....well, remember when my stove shocked me a few weeks back? I had to ask my Dad and the men here how to deal with it; I really wished I had a guy of my own to ask then. And sometimes I look around at my yard and the place in general and realize yeah, it's pretty obvious that there is no man around here. Lauri in WA >>> The reason I'm married is so that someone will clean >>> up the kitchen after dinner and remembers to feed the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > myself less of a hassle than living with an antagonistic, critical > person. Well, certainly, if those were the only two choices... >> Most of the time, I find the extra work of having to do everything >> myself less of a hassle than living with an antagonistic, critical >> person. > >Well, certainly, if those were the only two choices... Thus far, they have been for me. Lauri in WA >>> Most of the time, I find the extra work of having to do everything >>> myself less of a hassle than living with an antagonistic, critical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lauri in WA "One finds what one is looking for...." (can I get away with saying THAT?? :-) It's easy to see why. Crystal. That isn't surprising. > That isn't surprising. Who/what are you replying to??? Not all of us have that 6th sense, you know. > Most of the time, I find the extra work of having to do everything > myself less of a hassle than living with an antagonistic, critical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > place in general and realize yeah, it's pretty obvious that there is > no man around here. \\ Bingo. However, it's entirely amoral to want another person to link to you merely because you are alone. Still - it's true that two people can accomplish more than two individuals in many casses (the basses of civiliazation, let's say) Good to see you think masculinity is important in theory. You don't seem to get it, though - in general. La Mer said > > Taking myself, if I was single, I would not want to date anyone under, say, > > 37 (this is a roundabout number, but I feel it's a good cutoff point for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > write, paticpate in ASM (teehee), and walk along the beach and collect > shells. Get married again? I think not. No, I know not :-) You probably just nailed the reason that LDR's seem to be increasing in popularity. That is about where I am right now - every other weekend we are totally absorbed with being together, then it is back to the normal life for the next 12 days. I even walk on the beach occasionally during the "off" time - not many shells to find here though. :-) > > I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone 50 > > dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap as someone [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > they are on the same team when it comes to money, retirement, > kids/college, etc. I agree - I don't think it is age either. I seem to be involved in the most enjoyable relationship I have ever experienced. We have similar attitudes & temperaments, like the same types of movies (even old ones) and music, like warm weather & hate cold weather, and I could sit and talk to this woman forever. She's 39 and I'm 52. Go figure. Casey > I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone 50 > dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap as > someone 20 dating someone 30 (on average) I dunno - I suspect it depends on their plans. It does seem to me that if somebody 60 [who planned to retire in 2 years at 62 and spend their time traveling] married somebody 50 [who planned to work 15 more years, and retire at age 65] they could be setting themselves up for a pretty big life stage gap. OTOH, if they both planned to retire in 5 years at 55 and 65, it might not be a big deal. >> I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone >> 50 dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pretty big life stage gap. OTOH, if they both planned to retire in 5 > years at 55 and 65, it might not be a big deal. <G>... SO is 10 years older than I am.. I plan on having him wait on me hand and foot when he 'retires' in a few years. >>> I would agree that age importance lessens when we get older. Someone >>> 50 dating someone who is 60 is likely not as big a "life stage" gap [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > <G>... SO is 10 years older than I am.. I plan on having him wait on > me hand and foot when he 'retires' in a few years. My husband is 6 months older than me and not only did we meet at uni, we were in the same year, so all our history is common and we're at the same stage in life. In contrast my parents had 8 years between them and that worked well for them except for a small hiccup when my father retired at age 55. My mother was only 47 and wasn't ready to retire and felt it irksome to have her dearly loved husband under foot so much. It was the little things like Dad wanting to have a sit down lunch with her when she was used to eating on the run, or not at all. She complained about putting on weight, for example! As it happened he didn't like being retired much himself so went back to work as a consultant and they were both happy again and seemed to adjust better later when he did finally give up outside work. Tai >> <G>... SO is 10 years older than I am.. I plan on having him wait on >> me hand and foot when he 'retires' in a few years. > > My husband is 6 months older than me and not only did we meet at uni, > we were in the same year, so all our history is common and we're at > the same stage in life. The ex and I and were less than a year apart, though he was one year ahead of me in school. We were friends from the age of 16, so our history was common and at the same stages as well. Lotta good it did us :-) > In contrast my parents had 8 years between them and that worked well > for them except for a small hiccup when my father retired at age 55. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > used to eating on the run, or not at all. She complained about putting > on weight, for example! Was she a stay at home mom/wife or did she work outside the home? I wouldn't be at home to worry whether he'll be under foot or not, so that wouldn't be an issue; he'd just as likely be taking off canoeing or hiking for the day than sitting at home anyway. Maybe he'll pack my lunches for me before he heads out the door, though <G> > As it happened he didn't like being retired much himself so went back > to work as a consultant and they were both happy again and seemed to > adjust better later when he did finally give up outside work. SO probably will continue to work for himself, at least part time, once he gets to be that age, so I'm not at all worried that he'll be bored or anything. Anyway, the house won't clean itself, so he'll just have to keep make sure it's spic and span before I get home! ;-) > I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I choose to date a wide variety of woman including ages before marrying for the first and last time at 48. Age has something to do with the outcome when life experiences are minimal and or there is a disparity maturity wise. One understanding became clear while dating all those years; many people choose people in like stages of life, and leave behind maturity, balance values or moral paring. Then, when they grow past the other into a new stage they move on to find another of like mind set; seldom realizing they bring very little to the marriage table... Hence, an acquaintance that's been married 5 times with kids from 4 wife's. In the end, I married a well educated professional woman ten years younger, similar values, moral expectations, and a mature understanding of what is required to keep a marriage for life, and she's not a quitter regardless of what's thrown at her. SignatureSD:) Norwegian stats: http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2005-01-31-01-en.html This one has more interesting stats: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml May spark some interesting threads.... for example I was surprised that 1 in 3 marriages will make it to the 25th anniversary... Bo > Norwegian stats: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > May spark some interesting threads.... for example I was surprised that 1 in > 3 marriages will make it to the 25th anniversary... Ours is in 4 months! (So I'm hoping that we'll make it!) >> Norwegian stats: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ours is in 4 months! (So I'm hoping that we'll make it!) Congrats in advance! The next will be 19 for us...I hope to see 75. How's that for optimism, Bill? :) Bo Thanks Bo! Awesome! Excellent Norwegian site. I am surprised and in fact delighted that 12.5% (from the graph) of men are over 10+ years older than the women they marry! I thought it would be in the single digits (like it was in the 1960s). And as the Norwegian site points out, the ratio is even more pronounced for women. This is also true in my case "another factor that has contributed to the increase in marriages where the man is a lot older than the woman is the increasing number of so called mail order marriages" I would like to see any stats for mixed race mail order marriages where the man is 20 years senior to the woman. That would be very cool. BTW the Norwegians seem pretty laid back about race it seems. I've seen really old guys with the white sea captain beard from up there (when I vacation in the Caribbean) with black girls (young enough to be their daughters if not granddaughters) all the time. Cool. BTW I am not looking for validation from others, it's just that I'm a numbers guy. I always beat the odds, but I like to know what the odds are. And yeah, conversation is secondary to a nice body and kids in my book. As for maturity, they always say I don't act my age (what's my age again?) LOL. Very lively group here...I have to lurk here more often. In most Usenet/Google groups the posts are a day or two later--here it's a few hours later! Pretty cool. Thanks to all, Ray > Norwegian stats: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bo > BTW I am not looking for validation from others, it's just that I'm a > numbers guy. I always beat the odds, but I like to know what the odds > are. And yeah, conversation is secondary to a nice body and kids in my > book. As for maturity, they always say I don't act my age (what's my > age again?) LOL. Kinda reminds me of an old saying - "Cooking lasts. Looks don't". Or an alternative version, "Cooking lasts. Kissing don't". >> BTW I am not looking for validation from others, it's just that I'm a >> numbers guy. I always beat the odds, but I like to know what the odds [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Kinda reminds me of an old saying - "Cooking lasts. Looks don't". Or an > alternative version, "Cooking lasts. Kissing don't". In the Final Analysis, nothing lasts (forever), grasshopper. Some things (and ideas) do last forever. Grasshopper Indeed. > Some things (and ideas) do last forever. > > Grasshopper Indeed. Come again? Who/what are you replying to? Can you put it in next time? It's hard to follow otherwise. Even if some of us are mind readers.. > I've searched the internet and I have some clues* but does anybody have > a good statistics on the age differences between a man and a woman (or > husband and wife) when they get married? I advocate marrying a younger man, so then you can train'im. > I advocate marrying a younger man, so then you can train'im. Worked with me... <g> however, we never married. I was 17, she was 28. Boy was I trained... SignatureSD:) No stats, but I'd hazard a guess that the average (and perhaps the median) is that the guy is typically 5 years older, give or take. > I've searched the internet and I have some clues* but does anybody have > a good statistics on the age differences between a man and a woman (or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > marriages and one for second marriages and the age differences between > husband and wife at the first and at the second marriage. C'mon people, you can do better than that! LOL. I appreciate the anecdotal evidence, however for any social workers reading this out there I really would appreciate any stats. I've scoured the internet and found nothing--you would think these stats are eas |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message