Some people miss the good old days, before mass media really hit its stride, but don't blame the rank and file American. They are not, and never have been, in charge of the economy. The shift to a consumer society of not very learnéd consumers is a creation of the bourgeoisie. Blame them. — Bitter Crank

You always have good practical advice. Are we just screwed? I mean, sure, random individuals can "free" themselves from the dominant social values and live a life of relative simplicity and sanity on the margins of society. But how would you go about starting a grassroots movement encouraging people to not consume? Or, more accurately and realistically, to consume less? Yeah, probably not going to generate a lot of momentum haha...

Ah right, so people's salaries were halved and they have to work twice as hard now but they're still lazy fucks. Which one is it? Make a choice. — Benkei

I didn't say they were lazy nor that they have to work twice as hard individually.

Salaries didn't half. They did stagnate — Benkei

Ever heard of inflation? It's a simple question of supply v demand.

And? Nobody is forcing you to have sex. How exactly is this your problem? — Benkei

I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in.

I will address the other parts of your post at some other time, since they require longer answers. Need to get back to work now.

The age of marriage fell from a high of 26.1/22.0 in 1890, to 22.7/20.3 in 1947. It remained low during the post war economic expansion. In the early 1970s the age of marriage was at 23.2/20.8 and has increased up to 29.2/27.1 in 2015. A close analysis would, I think, show that age of marriage tends to increases during economic downturns (such as there was at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, during the Great Depression, and then during the long slow recession from 1970 to 2015) and decreases during periods of economic growth and vitality (like the post WWII boom).

This makes sense: It is easier to find work, marry, and establish a family during periods of expansion than during periods of contraction. Women joined the workforce in large numbers starting in the 1970s; this was less a product a women's liberation and more a product of contraction. In order to maintain the standard of living of the 50s and 60s, it became necessary for both adults in the family to work. During the last 48 years, it has become much more difficult for ordinary workers (70% of the population, at least) to maintain the quality of life. Declining wages, declining benefits, structural unemployment, inflation, and redistribution of income towards the richest 5%, has all played a role here.

If families abandoned the model of 1 breadwinner and 1 home maker, it wasn't because the model became old-hat. It just wasn't financially feasible any more.

Very quickly - I sympathise with this:

And that's why nowadays it takes 2 people working to sustain a family, whereas in the recent past 1 was enough (100 years ago). — Agustino

Maybe with a combination of increased automation and UBI and other such things a paradigm shift in social values can take place. Just throwing out ideas...

I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-op approach, which would seek to change opinions rather than laws. I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - but I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility. — Erik

I agree with this. I appreciate the freedoms I have and allow others to exercise them as they see fit even though I don't agree with half of the shit going on. I don't like the sexualisation of women we have seen and continue to see but then I see movements in society that try to combat this. A silly but likable example: Project Body Hair

I see a resurgence in collectivist programs as well. With a practical implementation through the sharing economy. Although quantitative research on size and growth is sparse, it's definitely here to stay and might account for 50% of the economy eventually (its seemingly maximum potential according to PwC).

There's an undercurrent to move to basics, more natural life styles as well. There's a lot of initiatives going on that are voluntary that allow people to meet up with like minded people.

I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest. I know what the problem is though. — Agustino

You should ask this: what action that would bring the world closer to your ideal would not also hurt people?

Think of a female archeologist who wants to devote her life to science in the way a man would easily be allowed to in any era of history.

Fix the world without hurting her.

I didn't say they were lazy nor that they have to work twice as hard individually. — Agustino

I'll let you think on how those people who chose to be single with half a salary compared to what they used to have have to do, while at the same time insisting they're spoiled and have 1001 second chances and their entitlements.

It is the entitlement generation. Who ever decided corporate managers are entitled to those insane salaries? (I'm actually reading an interesting book on how it's economically reasonable to leave money on the table when your skin or soul is in the game: Skin in the Game by Nassim Taleb

Although his ethical groundwork is a mess, he does make some interesting points and a seemingly conservative writer as well. (Yes, I don't shun what the "other" side has to say).

Ever heard of inflation? It's a simple question of supply v demand. — Agustino

You quite clearly didn't read the research paper I included. It's also not a simple question of supply vs. demand as income leads to increase demand for the very goods those women help to produce. The stagnation of income is exploitation by the capitalist bourgeouisie as explained and predicted by Marx.

I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in.

I will address the other parts of your post at some other time, since they require longer answers. Need to get back to work now. — Agustino

Aha, so you want to limit other people's freedoms for selfish reasons. Talk about "individualism".

It's always surprising to me how unaware you are of these sort of contradictions in your thoughts. It's also prevalent when supporting Trump while insisting on honesty and character with a sort of "the end justifies the means" by destroying everything and then hoping people will come up with something "better" (where better is something you like).

Cue rationalisation why it isn't really contradictory.

Note that he (BitterCrank) doesn't establish the labour participation of women as the cause of declining wages but declining wages as the cause for labour participation of women as a necessity.

You always have good practical advice. Are we just screwed? I mean, random individuals can "free" themselves from the dominant values and live a life on the margins of society. But how would you go about starting a grassroots movement encouraging people to not consume? Yeah, probably not going to generate a lot of momentum haha... — Erik

Probably screwed, but let's not dwell on it.

Yes, people can free themselves of the dominant values and live their lives out on the margin. There are, actually, quite a few people out there. Most of them ended up on the margin because they went broke, not because they embraced radical values.

There has been a "simple living" moving operating under various names and auspices for the last 50 years, at least. It appeals mostly to people who can afford to live simply -- single people or couples without children who have very modest material aspirations. Usually "simple living" people are educated idealists. It also includes people who failed to make much money and needed a respectable cover.

Never mind starting a grassroots movement away from consumerism. Growing levels of poverty will drive people into simple living whether they jolly well like it or not. But a little theory can help the victims of pauperization cope with it better.

There is, though, good reason to block the flow of commercial, consumer messages into one's brain. Buying stuff generally doesn't serve the individual's interests all that well; it serves the interests of the seller. Life is much calmer without all the commercial noise and consumerist flailing. It is easier to make sense of life if one isn't chasing the spurious promises of advertisers or buying stuff one doesn't really need just because everybody else has it. (I'm not guiltless here; I periodically experience hunger pangs for more stuff.)

Maybe with a combination of increased automation and UBI and other such things a paradigm shift in social values can take place. Just throwing out ideas... — Erik

A slight correction: A very large paradigm shift (like a revolution) will be required before there is any sort of UBI, especially an adequate UBI. The reason a very large paradigm shift will be required first is that too large a share of wealth is tied up by the super-rich. The paradigm shift will be the one that allows transferring a significant portion of their wealth (like most of it) to the rest of the population. (Do not hold your breath waiting for the revolution.)

I see a resurgence in collectivist programs as well. With a practical implementation through the sharing economy. Although quantitative research on size and growth is sparse, it's definitely here to stay and might account for 50% of the economy eventually (its seemingly maximum potential according to PwC).

There's an undercurrent to move to basics, more natural life styles as well. There's a lot of initiatives going on that are voluntary that allow people to meet up with like minded people. — Benkei

Ooh I'll look into these things. I need to keep abreast of what's going on in the world; maybe we're already in the incipient stages of a significant paradigm shift.

A slight correction: A very large paradigm shift (like a revolution) will be required before there is any sort of UBI, especially an adequate UBI. The reason a very large paradigm shift will be required first is that too large a share of wealth is tied up by the super-rich. The paradigm shift will be the one that allows transferring a significant portion of their wealth (like most of it) to the rest of the population. (Do not hold your breath waiting for the revolution.) — Bitter Crank

Well, the super-rich may find it in their interest to sacrifice a part of their wealth for the sake of maintaining a certain level of social stability. This would be preferable, I imagine, to keeping it all and running the risk of having it appropriated (expropriated?). Pragmatism.

I agree with your observation. But what do you reckon is the cause? Less opportunities? Too much bureaucracy? Lower salaries? — Agustino

Many are saddled with student debt, most companies don't offer reasonable raises (it's generally accepted that the best way to regularly increase your salary is to change jobs every two years, which isn't always easy to do). There are a number of reasons.

Yes, people can free themselves of the dominant values and live their lives out on the margin. There are, actually, quite a few people out there. Most of them ended up on the margin because they went broke, not because they embraced radical values. — Bitter Crank

True. And most of us secretly envy the rich even when we bash them. I have many significant flaws, but I honestly have zero desire to be filthy rich. I should make it clear, however, that I'm not advocating poverty. It's something much more modest and reasonable than that.

I envision an age, say, 100 years down the line when: we no longer envy the rich, we value our time more than superfluous things, we think the purpose of education involves more than its potential financial payout; etc. In other words, a shift in our collective way of being. Not poverty - simplicity. Not laziness - energy partly redirected to other (perhaps artistic or maybe community-oriented) endeavors once our basic needs are met.

There has been a "simple living" moving operating under various names and auspices for the last 50 years, at least. It appeals mostly to people who can afford to live simply -- single people or couples without children who have very modest material aspirations. Usually "simple living" people are educated idealists. It also includes people who failed to make much money and needed a respectable cover. — Bitter Crank

Yeah these are the ones who are forced to live simply. I find the free choice to live in such a way to be admirable. Maybe I'm insane but it has a lot of appeal to me. To not have a price? To not act obsequiously towards the wealthy and connected? To look forward to working at something you love until the day you die, even if you make less money doing so? To me, those are indications of a genuine and noble freedom. There's even an aristocratic element to it imo, with the obvious proviso that this only holds true for cases where it's freely chosen rather than imposed through less elevated reasons (lack of work ethic, lack of intelligence, etc.)

And again it doesn't necessarily involve living like a pauper. One has to forego many things, there's no denying that, but what they gain may make it worthwhile.The big thing, I think, is particular to our capitalist/consumerist context: the complete lack of social recognition one receives by living in such a way. So it's a matter of shifting perspectives. Not an easy task, obviously, especially given the various (powerful) forces shaping images of "success" - but these things are historically contingent and I don't see why our understanding of what a successful life entails will not be subject to change at some point in the future.

Anyhow, I think slight changes in values working incrementally over the next 50-100 years could ultimately result in a radical shift. It would be nice to think there'll come a day when people look back and think about how insane their ancestors were: in the way they related to others, to their world, and to themselves. IMO, an ontological shift is what's needed more than a political and/or economic one. They're related, of course, but that's the way I see it.

I live in society, it's affecting me, as it happens all around me. My children will live in society too, it will affect them, and so on so forth. You're behaving as if I lived on a mountain, and not sorrounded by the activities that other people engage in. — Agustino

How, exactly, does this affect you?

I envision an age, say, 100 years down the line when: we no longer envy the rich, we value our time more than superfluous things, we think the purpose of education involves more than its potential financial payout; etc. In other words, a shift in our collective way of being. Not poverty - simplicity. Not laziness - energy partly redirected to other (perhaps artistic or maybe community-oriented) endeavors once our basic needs are met. — Erik

In principle this is very much possible with robotics, provided the resulting benefits from robotic production are shared. As it looks like now, it will be the owners of capital capable of affording to build robots and therefore retain all the profits they generate and the chasm between haves and have-nots will only increase. We have to anticipate on this early and effectively.

Yeah these are the ones who are forced to live simply. I find the free choice to live in such a way to be admirable. Maybe I'm insane but it has a lot of appeal to me. To not have a price? To not act obsequiously towards the wealthy and connected? To look forward to working at something you love until the day you die, even if you make less money doing so? To me, those are indications of a genuine and noble freedom. There's even an aristocratic element to it imo, with the obvious proviso that this only holds true for cases where it's freely chosen rather than imposed through less elevated reasons (lack of work ethic, lack of intelligence, etc.)

And again it doesn't necessarily involve living like a pauper. One has to forego many things, there's no denying that, but what they gain may make it worthwhile.The big thing, I think, is particular to our context: the complete lack of social recognition. It's a matter of shifting perspectives. Not an easy task, obviously, especially given the various (powerful) forces shaping images of "success" - these things are historically contingent. — Erik

Actually, I share a lot of this as well and I'm not alone. I'm working on a technical implementation of an idea I have that will save the European pension industry about 3 billion EUR a year. The solution, if it does what I and my partners say it does, is "pure gold" as some market participants have described it.

Yet, when writing our bottom line, my partners and I said, regardless of whether this becomes a financial success what we want to win from it is 1) acknowledgment, 2) attempt to build ourselves and 3) leverage that to have the freedom to choose jobs in the future. We're not in it for the money, we're in it because it's an exciting new idea that nobody else thought of. We're doubly excited because it avoids a huge social cost. Only after those considerations do we entertain ideas of becoming rich (not in the least because there's still a zillion hurdles to cross before a start up is a success). But we think even when we fail, we can still reach our goal number 3).

The problem is social conservatism cannot be squared with individualism, even in a modest sense of the term, and empirically it can't be squared with an unfair or tenuous economy.

Those are obvious problems. I think a form of social conservatism - of the type I've outlined (poorly perhaps) in broad strokes - combined with economic progressivism holds some potential. But then there would have to be an infringement on the economic freedom of some individuals, unless there's some sort of divine intervention precipitating a shift in human beings from where we're at now (joking here).

In principle this is very much possible with robotics, provided the resulting benefits from robotic production are shared. As it looks like now, it will be the owners of capital capable of affording to build robots and therefore retain all the profits they generate and the chasm between haves and have-nots will only increase. We have to anticipate on this early and effectively. — Benkei

:up: :100:

Yet, when writing our bottom line, my partners and I said, regardless of whether this becomes a financial success what we want to win from it is 1) acknowledgment, 2) attempt to build ourselves and 3) leverage that to have the freedom to choose jobs in the future. We're not in it for the money, we're in it because it's an exciting new idea that nobody else thought of. We're doubly excited because it avoids a huge social cost. Only after those considerations do we entertain ideas of becoming rich (not in the least because there's still a zillion hurdles to cross before a start up is a success). But we think even when we fail, we can still reach our goal number 3). — Benkei

Please keep us posted. Sounds like you guys are way ahead of the curve.

I think I would agree with him too. The fissures we notice across the cultural landscape go too deep to heal, precisely because we're dealing with a phenomenon where the two groups have so diverged from each other, that they effectively live in two different worlds.

The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.

There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. The two groups have got accustomed to entirely different ways of life. And the former feel that they're just about (or were just about) to get the world the way they wanted, so they will not slow down, while the latter feel that they're about to lose their world as they know it.

Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully. — Agustino

I would agree there is a split such as you describe (as long as we are discussing a general, big picture meta-view).

However... I feel that it is dwarfed by another much more primal division. Let us imagine two neighbors in an average, economically struggling city. Let’s say that Jane is a far left-leaning lesbian. Her neighbor John is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who appreciates the wit and wisdom of Fox news. Jane rolls her eyes at John’s four huge American flags displayed prominently as well as his enormous pick-up truck with the fierce patriotic bald eagle motif. John sneers at Jane’s rainbow flag and hippie decorations. And they both resent the other’s many election signs on their lawn.

Two totally different people, right? Or are they merely mirror images of each other? Aren’t they really more alike than different? Isn’t this a matter of tradition, preference, taste, emotions, etc. Important and serious, but not totally unresolvable.

Now contrast John and Jane with just about any political “mover and shaker” member (Liberal, Right-winger, or whatever) of the so-called economic 1%. The cream of the crop, the billionaires calling the tune that the rest of us have to dance to. Compared to the ruling billionaires, John and Jane look like siblings who just prefer different TV shows.

This is the division which divides us.

This schism is fostered by the mega-wealthy to keep the “common people” from uniting against them, and surrounding the castle with a pitchfork and torch-bearing crowd. Nevertheless, I am certain that any attempt at some kind of French Revolution 2.0 would be disastrous. Subtlety, calmness, and stealth are needed. Think WWII French Resistance rather than guillotines and Marie Antoinette. Violence as a political game-changing plan has been shown to be counterproductive, and is a certain magnet for a gov’t crackdown.

But the basic dynamics and outlines of the drama are getting more similar each day. The pressure increases each day, as does the temptation to blame our neighbor. Whatever the prescription is, I do not know. In any case, this appears to be the only slightly exaggerated meta-view and diagnosis from this corner.

But ultimately... or as ultimately as one can imagine... there is no “us and them”. There is only us, creating and re-creating our world in each moment. The planet Earth is a given, a solid reality of matter and energy. The human world is our creation, and always has been.

When you become a rich elite and book your spot in Trump tower, I will come gunning for you with my socialist ressentiment... and several requests for material goods I covet. :up:

It's gone, you know. Conservatism I mean, as a force in our politics, society or culture. Sadly, I would say. It's been suborned as a political force, as our politicians will do whatever is necessary, appeal to whomever they need to, merely to remain where they are if not take some other position in the hierarchy. Actual conservatism requires adherence to principles, and they have none. Socially and culturally it's been replaced by unthinking allegiance to certain shibboleths relating to patriotism, religion, sexual conduct, nationalism, money, and a very narrow view of what it is to be American.

:lol:

Yeah I was thinking something like, "psst, Benkei, hey, uh, I know I just talked a good game about not caring about money and material things and all that, but, uh, can I get a job with your company?"

:halo:

I would say generational differences play into this a lot, too. For example, age of an "average" Facebook user is 25 - 34. It was created only with intent, not with knowledge. Therefore, no one could predict that it would go out of proportion and then it so happens that children are growing up in an environment where this twisted form of communication exists and is taken as the norm. 30+ year old people see it often as cool and use it to "share" their views and experiences with the world without realising what kind of impact it has on the youth. I'm in my early twenties and it makes me sick to see, in this case Facebook users, being so ignorant. It goes as far, for me, as to say that it is simply unwise to listen to any advice from people who are above certain age. This is not because they are older (after all, a great amount of wisdom comes from authors of previous eras of our history), but because they comment on what young people should do while they themselves support social media and other non-sense that harms the youth. Just look at the number of discussion and articles on what millennials should do, ironically from people who are not millennials. For once, non-millenials should focus on what they themselves should do and how they should act, and so should the millenials of course. The previous generation, at least where I live, have been a disaster for our generation.

I find it highly unethical to create an unpredictable world for the next generation. That way, the previous generation completely avoids responsibility because they didn't live their young years the way the next generation does. There is no Skin in the Game, in Taleb's words. Now, if the previous generation wants to create a "better" world for the next generation, it should only be done under predictable circumstances, which, naturally, means that the changes would be very little and experimental for the most part. If human had done this from the beginning, it wouldn't have gotten to the current point, and so, this idea would not work if applied now.

Now, if the previous generation wants to create a "better" world for the next generation, it should only be done under predictable circumstances, which, naturally, means that the changes would be very little and experimental for the most part. — Coldlight

Just to clarify, how are your views different from Jordan Peterson fueled incel nonsense?

Many are saddled with student debt, most companies don't offer reasonable raises (it's generally accepted that the best way to regularly increase your salary is to change jobs every two years, which isn't always easy to do). There are a number of reasons. — Maw

I see. The alternative is to start some business of your own, you can, in time, make a lot better money that way, than staying on a wage. I really do think more young people should turn to entrepreneurship. It has worked well for me.

With regards to this:

I have two close friends getting married soon, and they've had to scrap and save a lot in order to afford it, despite one of them being in a committed relationship with the girl for eight years. — Maw

I'm from Eastern Europe, and here weddings are expensive, however, most people recover the money and actually earn much more from the wedding than they spend. That's why many times you'll find that people buy a car, or buy an apartment after a wedding. The reason for this is that here everyone who attends is expected to give money. So, say that a couple attends your wedding, they will give at least $50 (and quite a few will give more). Now if you have ~400 guests, roughly in groups of 2, that is at minimum 200*50 = $10,000. Now you may spend $4,000 here, but you'll certainly pocket the difference. Now, to give you an idea, average take-home wage is around $600-800 here. Taking $800 as the upper limit, that means that from a wedding you can potentially make in revenue more than you'd make in an entire year of work.

Is this different in the US?

How, exactly, does this affect you? — Maw

Well, if promiscuity is seen as acceptable socially, then regardless of how well I try to educate my kids at home, they will attend school, and see all the "cool" kids engaging or talking about such behaviour, and the peer pressure will make them think it is alright. That's just one example. Then I will also have to deal with friends whose marriages fall apart because of it, and so on so forth. It's going to create trouble in all sorts of ways. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I mean, the way people act and behave, and the cultural expectations around certainly influence what is happening.

I come from an ex-communist country. So during communism, things were REALLY social conservative. You wouldn't see people kiss on the street or in the park for example. Cheating on your partner was almost unheard of, since the consequences, from the families involved and also at the workplace were severe (it did happen, but it was mostly with the powerful, well-connected, etc.). Dating someone who was seen as socially inferior to you was unacceptable (you could lose your job). Parents played a big role in who you could date and who you couldn't. Talking about sex was extremely rare, it was a taboo subject. Showing off based on sexual conquests and the like was fringe behaviour. Etc.

Now I'm totally opposed to such a controlling form of social conservatism. But I'm saying that I know first-hand that tough laws and a strong culture can certainly prevent lots of bad behaviour. The danger here though is hypocrisy.

After the fall of communism, and with the advent of democracy, sexual immorality has GREATLY increased. Lots more divorces, a lot more cheating, more promiscuity, etc. So with the influx of Americanism, and American culture, we have also seen a dissolution of moral values. And Eastern Europeans quite often try to mimick American culture - probably the influx coming from Hollywood movies.

The problem is social conservatism cannot be squared with individualism, even in a modest sense of the term, and empirically it can't be squared with an unfair or tenuous economy. — Maw

I'm very curious why you think that social conservatism cannot be squared with an unfair or tenous economy?

The alternative is to start some business of your own, you can, in time, make a lot better money that way, than staying on a wage. I really do think more young people should turn to entrepreneurship. It has worked well for me. — Agustino

This is a terrible terrible strategy for the majority of people. US data from 1994-2015 shows that the typical survival rate for a new business drops precipitously within the first five years to 55% likelihood of survival. By year 10 it's around 30%, and these survival rates don't say anything about profit rates, so the owner could just be making ends meet. It's also fair to assume that those who do start businesses tend to not have debt (e.g. student loans), or have a certain socio-economic network that can help support them through investment and guidance. Starting a business while in debt, without a supporting network is highly risky, and lacks stability. If your goal is to save for a wedding than the stable choice for the vast majority of people, for better or worse, is a wage job.

I'm from Eastern Europe, and here weddings are expensive, however, most people recover the money and actually earn much more from the wedding than they spend. That's why many times you'll find that people buy a car, or buy an apartment after a wedding. The reason for this is that here everyone who attends is expected to give money. So, say that a couple attends your wedding, they will give at least $50 (and quite a few will give more). Now if you have ~400 guests, roughly in groups of 2, that is at minimum 200*50 = $10,000 — Agustino

Well I have no idea what currency you are using, but in USD the average wedding costs between $25K - $40K, and typically includes about 100 - 200 guests. Guests give money as well (typically $75 - $125 depending on how close you are with the couple), but often times a registry is set up where guests can purchase certain household items and appliances for the couple (which can be as low as $30). All-in-all no one is making money from a wedding in America.

Well, if promiscuity is seen as acceptable socially, then regardless of how well I try to educate my kids at home, they will attend school, and see all the "cool" kids engaging or talking about such behaviour, and the peer pressure will make them think it is alright. That's just one example. Then I will also have to deal with friends whose marriages fall apart because of it, and so on so forth. It's going to create trouble in all sorts of ways. Do you think I'm wrong about that? I mean, the way people act and behave, and the cultural expectations around certainly influence what is happening. — Agustino

Teenagers have sex. No one is going to stop that. You can either educate your kids about sex, and protection, etc. or impart your delusion by telling them your false, unsubstantiated, quasi-religious views on the matter, but you're not going to stop people from engaging in it. I have no clue how having a few sex partners in your past contributes to divorce, and I've already shown you that 1) the average number of sex partners has decreased from the Boomers to Millennials, and 2) monogamy is, overwhelmingly accepted over polygamy. I can't speak to what occurs in Eastern Europe but we aren't experiencing moral depravity simple in America at least because of sex.

I'm very curious why you think that social conservatism cannot be squared with an unfair or tenous economy? — Agustino

If social conservatism includes getting married young and having children young, which you suggest, then those added expenses are antithetical while living in an uncertain economy or one with stagnate wage growth, and other increased expenses.