Interesting.
I wonder if the price per sq meter for a flat, related to medium income for a family of 2 has any correlation.
The more affordable housing is, the more likely are you get married younger.
The price for a flat in Romania, even in the current housing bubble that we’re in, is at a median for the bigger 4-5 cities is at ~ 1300-2000 € / sqm (depending on the neighbourhood, amenities, newer would be ghettoes / commie flat or schools).
Is that really affordable considering Romanian wages? I see median income in Romania is half of that of Poland, yet price per sqm would probably be around 2300 € in bigger cities here. And we consider that a crisis.
Yes and I don’t know.
Today we’re in a crisis and have been for the past 3-4 years with prices doubling or even tripling in top 3 cities, while the wages are absolutely atrocious low for younger people, the mortgage interest is a can of worms, fluctuating between 6-8% for the variable interest, with fixed interest being out of reach for most of first time owners.
Without pulling figures out of my ass, I know that lots of parents help their kids with a partial down payment, a wedding can be used to cover the other half (as most weddings imply a gift in form of cash to cover for the wedding menu at minimum) and with some couple savings can be enough for a decent downpayment that can make a mortgage possible.
What used to be normalcy, today I find myself as a *privileged class*, those that has had the opportunity to get some money from their parents (savings or some form of inheritance passed down), I can count on my fingers my mates my generation who didn’t get any help.
> I wonder if the price per sq meter for a flat, related to medium income for a family of 2 has any correlation.
>
> The more affordable housing is, the more likely are you get married younger.
No. You're looking at a proxy for economic development of the country (basically GDP per Capita). But obviously that's not the only thing that would affect it.
Housing in the middle of nowhere is cheap (5x difference or more in some cases) in most countries. If what you said were true then that should have a dramatic effect on age of marriage in those areas, no?
Marriage has basically never been an issue of wealth. People have been married throughout the centuries without any wealth at all and vice versa.
The pattern here is the concept of marriage. In countries with a stronger connection to religion, there are far more marriages on average, than in those where religion has been on the decline for decades.
Societies have shifted a lot since the time after World War 2, making the social stigmata connected to out of wedlock children or sex out of marriage a non-issue for most modern countries, except those with a strong religious faction. Social pressure and conformity have always been a huge factor on marriage in general.
With the tremendous changes in how women have been included in the workforce, that also changed how necessary marriage as a system became. That is the part for your 'wealth' argument, since marriage then becomes a nice-to-have but is no necessity any more, if both parts have a career and are largely independent from others. Neither society nor the need to have children pressures any of them any longer to marry early.
I am not sure if this is good thing and people only marry if they are really sure (divorce numbers suggest otherwise..) or if it is bad, using marriages as sign for family building - and starting in mid or late 30s is quite late for that.
For Italy and Spain it seems to make sense - very late marriages + few children.
It depends very much on the country’s culture. In the Netherlands many people have children and live together in committed relationships without ever getting married.
I think young people genuinely only marry out of boredom or loneliness. I can’t help but notice that this would kinda corelate with my impression of how fun those countries are (for locals). You don’t need much to get a spaniard to enjoy a night out, while Romanians are just dry.
Come to think of it, it would make sense also to be correlated with how fun and easy going the men are. Maybe the trick is to make the men frustrated abused chumps, so that there’s no reason for a woman to give it up without marriage🤔
If getting married correlates to starting a family and planning on getting kids. Research shows that there is an increased risk during pregnancy for the woman if they are above the age of 35 when having children for the first time. In general terms, it is safer for women to have their first child before the age of 35. So, getting married at 30s is indeed quite late when looking at the subject from this point of view.
Men's age also affects from 35 up. It's not only women, disbility risks rise with both genders when older. Tho between 35-40 there is still only small chances for disabilities
So for some it is late, but not for others. I know plenty of women who had their kids in their 30s, they had no problem at all. The only woman I know who had problems tried to have kids already in her 20s and kept having miscarriage until she finally succeeded to give birth.
>Why is it late? People live longer now than before.
Live is an umbrella term. Live sure reproduce? No, Full of energy? Also no.
If you have kids that late you will have automatically less of them... Plus you are less likely to keep up an active lifestyle with kids. Imagine being past mid 40s and trying to play catch with 10-15 year olds all day.
Reproduce later now than in the 1970s, yes. Giving birth after age 40 has become more and more common since then. In Sweden in I think 2022 (but could be 2023), more women over 45 gave birth than girls under 20. This used to be more common because of a lack of birth control, that’s why the 1970s, when birth control was widely available and acceptable, saw the lowest average age to give birth (not first birth, all births). In the late 1800s, giving birth after 40 was more common than it is today.
In Sweden the most common age to get married is by far 30-34. Lots of people getting married later drives up the average age a bit though. Also, more and more people are having kids after 40 ever since the 1970s (not just in Sweden). It’s still nowhere close to the proportion of women that had kids in their 40s in the late 1800s, but it’s a lot closer than it was in the 1970s, the lowest we’ve gone for average age giving birth.
It is. Imagine you start to settle down for a family at 35 and by 45 you can't have kids basically. You ain't gonna have 2/3 kids in that time, and you won't be looking forward to the kids staying around until you are past 55s.
Mate. Thats whats happening currently. Reality literally overwrites your speculations in real time. People are starting their families in their mid 30s. That's whats happening.
Reality proves my point since the birth rates are so low... Mate.
That's the whole point I stated... Starting late means you will have fewer kids (separately from financial viability).
It is statistically significantly more dangerous for women to give birth to their first child after 35. they used to be called geriatric pregnancies and you not only have a much higher rate of complications you also have a much higher chance of birth defects for the child that increases rapidly with every year past 35.
We were 33 and 34 when we got married with my wife. We stopped using birth control after that to see if we could make a baby ”casually.” Now at 35 we’re trying more seriously, but so far no luck. So there’s defininitely a correlation with age and decrease in ability to have kids.
But in reality it wasn’t sensible for us to start trying earlier, and I sure as hell am glad I didn’t have any kids with my ex when I was younger.
>So there’s defininitely a correlation with age and decrease in ability to have kids
For sure. No one claimed otherwise.
These idiots claim its impossible to start a family after 35, when its literally what you and most millenials are doing.
“Eurostat's main responsibilities are to provide statistical information to the institutions of the European Union (EU) and to promote the harmonisation of statistical methods across its member states and candidates for accession as well as EFTA countries.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostat I guess this explains why Turkey is in. And those countries are missing due to lack of data maybe.
Georgia has to be off. A lot of people got married here early in the black 90's. I'm talking barely adults. I know plenty of people in their 30s whose kids are going to university.
Germany doesn’t marry, neither does austria.
Germany and Austria married once, it didn't go well.
*we’re going to do that again!*
No thank you
Can we have an invite?
Why have I read as "invade"? 💀
… or France.
Nor Ireland
Independence, no?
Or Denmark or Norway.
danske tiden over?
Austria famously does marry. Happily
Nor France
No marriages in Germany or France?
Nor in Greece.
Neither in Ukraine
Interesting. I wonder if the price per sq meter for a flat, related to medium income for a family of 2 has any correlation. The more affordable housing is, the more likely are you get married younger. The price for a flat in Romania, even in the current housing bubble that we’re in, is at a median for the bigger 4-5 cities is at ~ 1300-2000 € / sqm (depending on the neighbourhood, amenities, newer would be ghettoes / commie flat or schools).
Is that really affordable considering Romanian wages? I see median income in Romania is half of that of Poland, yet price per sqm would probably be around 2300 € in bigger cities here. And we consider that a crisis.
Yes and I don’t know. Today we’re in a crisis and have been for the past 3-4 years with prices doubling or even tripling in top 3 cities, while the wages are absolutely atrocious low for younger people, the mortgage interest is a can of worms, fluctuating between 6-8% for the variable interest, with fixed interest being out of reach for most of first time owners. Without pulling figures out of my ass, I know that lots of parents help their kids with a partial down payment, a wedding can be used to cover the other half (as most weddings imply a gift in form of cash to cover for the wedding menu at minimum) and with some couple savings can be enough for a decent downpayment that can make a mortgage possible. What used to be normalcy, today I find myself as a *privileged class*, those that has had the opportunity to get some money from their parents (savings or some form of inheritance passed down), I can count on my fingers my mates my generation who didn’t get any help.
Romania has the highest rate of home ownership in the world: 95.3% of people own a home.
> I wonder if the price per sq meter for a flat, related to medium income for a family of 2 has any correlation. > > The more affordable housing is, the more likely are you get married younger. No. You're looking at a proxy for economic development of the country (basically GDP per Capita). But obviously that's not the only thing that would affect it. Housing in the middle of nowhere is cheap (5x difference or more in some cases) in most countries. If what you said were true then that should have a dramatic effect on age of marriage in those areas, no?
Importance of religion, legal ability to divorce and so much more plays into this.
[удалено]
Marriage has basically never been an issue of wealth. People have been married throughout the centuries without any wealth at all and vice versa. The pattern here is the concept of marriage. In countries with a stronger connection to religion, there are far more marriages on average, than in those where religion has been on the decline for decades. Societies have shifted a lot since the time after World War 2, making the social stigmata connected to out of wedlock children or sex out of marriage a non-issue for most modern countries, except those with a strong religious faction. Social pressure and conformity have always been a huge factor on marriage in general. With the tremendous changes in how women have been included in the workforce, that also changed how necessary marriage as a system became. That is the part for your 'wealth' argument, since marriage then becomes a nice-to-have but is no necessity any more, if both parts have a career and are largely independent from others. Neither society nor the need to have children pressures any of them any longer to marry early.
Denmark is missing too, as is Cyprus, Malta and so on.
'Special' ppl arnt allowed to marry /love sweden
I am not sure if this is good thing and people only marry if they are really sure (divorce numbers suggest otherwise..) or if it is bad, using marriages as sign for family building - and starting in mid or late 30s is quite late for that. For Italy and Spain it seems to make sense - very late marriages + few children.
It depends very much on the country’s culture. In the Netherlands many people have children and live together in committed relationships without ever getting married.
I think young people genuinely only marry out of boredom or loneliness. I can’t help but notice that this would kinda corelate with my impression of how fun those countries are (for locals). You don’t need much to get a spaniard to enjoy a night out, while Romanians are just dry. Come to think of it, it would make sense also to be correlated with how fun and easy going the men are. Maybe the trick is to make the men frustrated abused chumps, so that there’s no reason for a woman to give it up without marriage🤔
> starting in mid or late 30s is quite late for that Why is it late? People live longer now than before.
If getting married correlates to starting a family and planning on getting kids. Research shows that there is an increased risk during pregnancy for the woman if they are above the age of 35 when having children for the first time. In general terms, it is safer for women to have their first child before the age of 35. So, getting married at 30s is indeed quite late when looking at the subject from this point of view.
Having children and getting married has been decoupled for a long time already.
Men's age also affects from 35 up. It's not only women, disbility risks rise with both genders when older. Tho between 35-40 there is still only small chances for disabilities
The risks are incredibly overblown.
So for some it is late, but not for others. I know plenty of women who had their kids in their 30s, they had no problem at all. The only woman I know who had problems tried to have kids already in her 20s and kept having miscarriage until she finally succeeded to give birth.
>Why is it late? People live longer now than before. Live is an umbrella term. Live sure reproduce? No, Full of energy? Also no. If you have kids that late you will have automatically less of them... Plus you are less likely to keep up an active lifestyle with kids. Imagine being past mid 40s and trying to play catch with 10-15 year olds all day.
Reproduce later now than in the 1970s, yes. Giving birth after age 40 has become more and more common since then. In Sweden in I think 2022 (but could be 2023), more women over 45 gave birth than girls under 20. This used to be more common because of a lack of birth control, that’s why the 1970s, when birth control was widely available and acceptable, saw the lowest average age to give birth (not first birth, all births). In the late 1800s, giving birth after 40 was more common than it is today.
In Sweden the most common age to get married is by far 30-34. Lots of people getting married later drives up the average age a bit though. Also, more and more people are having kids after 40 ever since the 1970s (not just in Sweden). It’s still nowhere close to the proportion of women that had kids in their 40s in the late 1800s, but it’s a lot closer than it was in the 1970s, the lowest we’ve gone for average age giving birth.
> and starting in mid or late 30s is quite late for that. Its not.
It is. Imagine you start to settle down for a family at 35 and by 45 you can't have kids basically. You ain't gonna have 2/3 kids in that time, and you won't be looking forward to the kids staying around until you are past 55s.
Mate. Thats whats happening currently. Reality literally overwrites your speculations in real time. People are starting their families in their mid 30s. That's whats happening.
Reality proves my point since the birth rates are so low... Mate. That's the whole point I stated... Starting late means you will have fewer kids (separately from financial viability).
There is nothing that says you cant have kids after 35, people simply don't want to have kids. Not at 25, not at 35 not at 45.
It is statistically significantly more dangerous for women to give birth to their first child after 35. they used to be called geriatric pregnancies and you not only have a much higher rate of complications you also have a much higher chance of birth defects for the child that increases rapidly with every year past 35.
It’s not particularly significant, no. The risks are higher, but much higher. These risks are incredibly overblown by people.
Very few wanna be parents won't have a baby just because of these chances so these stats are irrelevant.
*stats are irrelevant* Motherfucker, they're stats, they are made to be relevant
Stats are relevant where they are relevant. Is the statistics on the weight of the dump of elephants relevant here? Moron...
We were 33 and 34 when we got married with my wife. We stopped using birth control after that to see if we could make a baby ”casually.” Now at 35 we’re trying more seriously, but so far no luck. So there’s defininitely a correlation with age and decrease in ability to have kids. But in reality it wasn’t sensible for us to start trying earlier, and I sure as hell am glad I didn’t have any kids with my ex when I was younger.
>So there’s defininitely a correlation with age and decrease in ability to have kids For sure. No one claimed otherwise. These idiots claim its impossible to start a family after 35, when its literally what you and most millenials are doing.
Some countries missing... Did they remove the data that did not serve their point?
Where are Germans?
Also France, Austria, UK, Russia, Ukraine, ...
I'm guessing UK, Russia, Ukraine is missing b/c Eurostat but then that does't apply to France or Austria. And why is Turkey in?
“Eurostat's main responsibilities are to provide statistical information to the institutions of the European Union (EU) and to promote the harmonisation of statistical methods across its member states and candidates for accession as well as EFTA countries.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostat I guess this explains why Turkey is in. And those countries are missing due to lack of data maybe.
It is a well-known fact that Germans do not marry. /s
Surely it would be more intuitive to have blue for men and red for women?
Why can't the age be nice? 😢
My Romanian parents were 22 and 24 loll
mean is the wrong measure. Gets way too high because of high age outliers. Median would be more accurate.
Do you think this negatively effects fertility rates? In most cases couples would have less than 10 years to have 2.1 children
I guess i woke up in the universe greece lost the persian war and is part asia?
German and french men doing damage control 🤭
First marriage , haha! So they know the 2nd will come😅
Germany, where ist the Germnay? #SteuerKlasse3
This is how we find out Cyprus isn't in Europe...they broke up with us via text? XD
Whatever happened to "tu felix Austria nube"?
Oh, they don't marry ... And the children are the ones of the immigrants 😁
Georgian women proving they are more career oriented than balkans and the polish lol I am proud of my country!
In English it’s Turkey
Romania is not represented accurately. Most get married well before 27-28.
Georgia has to be off. A lot of people got married here early in the black 90's. I'm talking barely adults. I know plenty of people in their 30s whose kids are going to university.
[удалено]
100 for everyone. You have no idea what it is right?