KCRag Forum

Half of American adults are single.

This increasingly has huge implications for housing, population density, schools, and urban centers.

I've said on several different threads on this forum that this is an often unacknowledged factor in rebuilding population densities in urban neighborhoods, because so many houses and apartments are occupied by only one person.

If half the adult population is single, then is it time for residential developers to start building more small houses--especially as infill in older neighborhoods that have vacant lots, and higher density residential buildings?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

Another trend lately is 'selfie relationships', single people in long term relationship but not living together and not ever having any kids (gay and straight). My sister is in 20 year relationship, not living together - though he has adult child/previous marriage. Some single friends (work same company, but not dept) have been together 15 years and own single family homes next door to each other, no plans to ever have kids. I've been in one for over 10 years and SO lives a few blocks away - we both have small condos. A 10 year septuagenarian couple in my building live in separate units (though both widowed with kids from previous marriages). Maintaining (perhaps selfish) freedom, independence and individuality is the 'in thing' in a big way while still having strong relationships. Is easier to do in lower cost metros like KC.

Would be interesting to see 'selfie relationships' tracked more closely. I suspect once they hit past 10 years, 'selfie relationships' may have higher success than marriages after another 10+ years. I've heard many divorced say they get along much better once they stopped living in same house. Some wealthy older friends up near Smithville Lake are married but live in separate houses on same property.

And then of course there are also more couples living together long term still classified as singles, moreso than past.

Most of these people also have more disposable income than someone with same income level with kids.

Why the heck do they count adults as those "16 years or older"? I sure as heck don't consider 16-17 year olds adult, particularly adults old enough to marry.

I wonder what the numbers look like if you take them out. Or heck, take out anyone under 21. I doubt too many of them are married.

And of course, a decent size of our population is not legally allowed to get married.

But yea, many more single people than ever before.

Since they used age 16 since the 70s, they need to use same metrics or otherwise you can't compare. Is still valid as it shows consistent growth over decades of singles when keeping the age range the same....

Yeah, using 16-21 is pretty retarded. Back in the 70s and even 80s you were expected to get married at an early age. It would be interesting to see these broken down by more religious places like Utah and rural parts of the bible belt were getting married early and having kids is still kind of expected.

yeah, i don't know.