Percentage of whites who never married, by sex

Here are some more interesting charts. They tell us the percentage of non-Hispanic (or non-Spanish surname for 1970) whites who were never married, by sex, and by year of census (2006 vs. 1970).

First of all, we observe that in 1970, non-Hispanic white people were much less likely to be in the never married category.

Another thing that has changed is the male/female disparity between 1970 and 2006. What do I mean? In 1970, 6.9% of men aged 41-45 were never married, compared to 5.1% of women. This is not a very big difference, and can be entirely explained away if you believe that 2.6% of men are homosexual compared to only 1.1% for women.

In 2006, 16.7% of men aged 41-45 were never married, compared to 10.6% of women. The unmarried gap has increased from 1.8 percentage points to 6.1 percentage points.

This indicates that most omega males born between 1925 and 1930 were able to find wives. But omega males born between 1961 and 1966 wind up never being able to find a wife. In modern times, women would rather become the second trophy wife of an older alpha male or never marry at all, than settle for an omega male.

* * *

An alternative explanation is that men don't need to get married in 2006 because women are willing to give them premarital sex. In 1970, a man had to marry in order to get a woman to put out.

2006, Male
Cells contain: -Row percent -N of cases		marst
		1 married past or present	2 never married	ROW TOTAL
age	1: 0-17	.2 34,765	99.8 21,693,689	100.0 21,728,454
	2: 18-20	2.5 105,335	97.5 4,040,485	100.0 4,145,820
	3: 21-24	15.0 769,036	85.0 4,351,249	100.0 5,120,285
	4: 25-28	42.1 2,081,610	57.9 2,857,640	100.0 4,939,250
	5: 29-32	64.0 2,917,133	36.0 1,641,512	100.0 4,558,645
	6: 33-36	74.5 3,825,781	25.5 1,310,636	100.0 5,136,417
	7: 37-40	80.4 4,399,181	19.6 1,071,114	100.0 5,470,295
	8: 41-45	83.3 6,481,466	16.7 1,298,601	100.0 7,780,067
	9: 45-50	87.0 6,946,339	13.0 1,042,244	100.0 7,988,583
	10: 51-60	91.2 12,448,369	8.8 1,198,587	100.0 13,646,956
	11: 61-70	94.9 8,093,145	5.1 436,823	100.0 8,529,968
	12: 71-80	95.6 5,168,127	4.4 239,626	100.0 5,407,753
	13: 81-90	96.3 2,357,951	3.7 91,453	100.0 2,449,404
	14: 91-99	96.5 363,877	3.5 13,281	100.0 377,158
	COL TOTAL	57.6 55,992,115	42.4 41,286,940	100.0 97,279,055

2006, Female
Cells contain: -Row percent -N of cases		marst
		1 married past or present	2 never married	ROW TOTAL
age	1: 0-17	.2 41,726	99.8 20,482,206	100.0 20,523,932
	2: 18-20	5.4 213,301	94.6 3,704,082	100.0 3,917,383
	3: 21-24	25.5 1,243,025	74.5 3,627,108	100.0 4,870,133
	4: 25-28	56.2 2,744,471	43.8 2,139,146	100.0 4,883,617
	5: 29-32	74.7 3,332,162	25.3 1,126,333	100.0 4,458,495
	6: 33-36	83.1 4,226,267	16.9 860,269	100.0 5,086,536
	7: 37-40	87.1 4,726,239	12.9 699,672	100.0 5,425,911
	8: 41-45	89.4 6,988,104	10.6 831,814	100.0 7,819,918
	9: 45-50	91.5 7,420,106	8.5 693,518	100.0 8,113,624
	10: 51-60	93.5 13,163,141	6.5 919,497	100.0 14,082,638
	11: 61-70	95.7 8,878,329	4.3 396,735	100.0 9,275,064
	12: 71-80	96.3 6,832,610	3.7 259,689	100.0 7,092,299
	13: 81-90	95.5 4,037,352	4.5 188,419	100.0 4,225,771
	14: 91-99	94.6 1,014,237	5.4 58,449	100.0 1,072,686
	COL TOTAL	64.3 64,861,070	35.7 35,986,937	100.0 100,848,007

1970, Male
Cells contain: -Row percent -N of cases		marst
		1 married past or present	2 never married	ROW TOTAL
age	1: 0-17	.3 80,628	99.7 29,324,749	100.0 29,405,377
	2: 18-20	12.8 564,914	87.2 3,841,840	100.0 4,406,754
	3: 21-24	51.3 2,691,680	48.7 2,553,445	100.0 5,245,125
	4: 25-28	80.2 3,727,214	19.8 920,289	100.0 4,647,503
	5: 29-32	88.6 3,501,455	11.4 451,944	100.0 3,953,399
	6: 33-36	91.6 3,346,830	8.4 306,486	100.0 3,653,316
	7: 37-40	92.5 3,534,998	7.5 285,275	100.0 3,820,273
	8: 41-45	93.1 4,709,938	6.9 349,612	100.0 5,059,550
	9: 45-50	93.8 4,789,973	6.2 318,885	100.0 5,108,858
	10: 51-60	93.8 8,224,170	6.2 542,898	100.0 8,767,068
	11: 61-70	93.2 5,607,494	6.8 406,351	100.0 6,013,845
	12: 71-80	93.1 3,084,781	6.9 228,887	100.0 3,313,668
	13: 81-90	92.5 898,377	7.5 72,521	100.0 970,898
	14: 91-99	90.6 75,531	9.4 7,806	100.0 83,337
	COL TOTAL	53.1 44,837,983	46.9 39,610,988	100.0 84,448,971

1970, Female
Cells contain: -Row percent -N of cases		marst
		1 married past or present	2 never married	ROW TOTAL
age	1: 0-17	.9 242,289	99.1 28,119,538	100.0 28,361,827
	2: 18-20	30.6 1,371,293	69.4 3,117,385	100.0 4,488,678
	3: 21-24	70.7 3,990,537	29.3 1,650,090	100.0 5,640,627
	4: 25-28	88.5 4,247,372	11.5 552,001	100.0 4,799,373
	5: 29-32	92.4 3,762,806	7.6 307,817	100.0 4,070,623
	6: 33-36	94.4 3,586,044	5.6 213,534	100.0 3,799,578
	7: 37-40	94.7 3,784,332	5.3 212,258	100.0 3,996,590
	8: 41-45	94.9 5,042,285	5.1 273,320	100.0 5,315,605
	9: 45-50	94.7 5,210,208	5.3 293,177	100.0 5,503,385
	10: 51-60	93.9 8,910,193	6.1 581,076	100.0 9,491,269
	11: 61-70	92.5 6,732,651	7.5 543,661	100.0 7,276,312
	12: 71-80	91.7 4,313,688	8.3 387,955	100.0 4,701,643
	13: 81-90	90.7 1,472,906	9.3 150,330	100.0 1,623,236
	14: 91-99	91.1 157,771	8.9 15,322	100.0 173,093
	COL TOTAL	59.2 52,824,375	40.8 36,417,464	100.0 89,241,839

Comments

[Spungen]

My dad has complained that after my mom died, there was some social pressure to remarry immediately to whatever was available. I won't mention the unflattering terms he used for whatever was available.

A few decades ago, a widower with two children probably would have had to remarry immediately, or the whole family would starve. Nowadays, it's a lot easier to feed and clothe a family.

People of both genders have a lot easier time getting by alone nowadays. So, there's less incentive to compromise. And as I've said before, increasing diversity makes it a lot less likely to find someone you can get along with imtimately.

[Spungen]

And P.S., you've never defined "omega male." Does it mean physically unattractive and financially unstable?

I think there are more financially unstable men than there used to be. It makes sense that such men would be less desirable to women.

[Half Sigma]

Omega males are the least sexually desirable males. As a woman, you can do a better job of figuring out whom they are than I can.

[Spungen]

In modern times, women would rather become the second trophy wife of an older alpha male

This describes very few of the multiple marriers out there. Most of the marrying men out there are proles or semi-proles, not alphas. It's much more common for those guys to marry two or three times, each time to a woman around his age. Same for the women. They're not marrying older alpha males, they're marrying divorced peers with kids.

The people we care about on this blog -- well educated urbanites -- are a very small slice of the population. You can't tell much about them by looking at a general survey.

[Spungen]

So Omega male is a synonym for undesirable male. That doesn't help. We need to figure out what's undesirable now that wasn't undesirable 40 years ago.

Well, more guys don't want kids nowadays. Also, fewer guys are either able or willing to support a family. There goes a big reason for getting married.

I spend a lot of time around proles, as you know. Many of their marriages are quick and meaningless. I don't get any sense that it makes a difference to their stability or achievements whether they get that piece of paper or not.

Oh, and even for the remarriers of means, I've seen very few marry "trophy wives." Again, it's usually a peer who's probably also been married before.

[Spungen]

I am going to try to find a way to replicate your research while dropping both the un-college-degreed and the bottom 50 percent of income. I will probably either fail or get distracted before I finish.

[Spungen]

Hey, you forget to mention the drop in religious affiliation since 1970. There's a lot less religious pressure to get married and produce children.

[Jason]

Another factor to explain this is the rise of the welfare state. Before LBJs Great Society in the mid 1960s just about every man was considered marriage material for some woman.

With welfare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8,etc. lower socioeconomic women were able to reject omega males in favor of sharing bad boys.

The decline in moral values that made it socially acceptable for women to have children out of wedlock was a brutal deal for the omega male. He would be lonely and womanless his whole life and as an added punishment pay taxes to support the children of women who rejected him. I would also strongly argue this was a bad deal for poor children as they are raised without a father. I believe that omega males generally make good stable husbands and fathers if given the chance.

This is not just limited to lower class women. The earned income tax credit has made it much easier and comfortable for middle class single working moms the chance to share alpha males. Same thing with getting big child support payments from ex husbands.

[Gannon]

Jason is completely right. Poor prole women used to marry poor prole men, now a lot of poor women are single mothers married to the state.

[Spungen]

With welfare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8,etc. lower socioeconomic women were able to reject omega males in favor of sharing bad boys.

I don't know, you guys. I don't think undesirable low-class poor men ever had it any easier than today.

There is less pressure to get married when the woman gets pregnant, however. So, there are more men (and women) who have children who don't get married. And more men who get women pregnant don't end up being fathers, thanks to Roe v. Wade.

And let's not idealize marriage in the old days among the proles. Guys left all the time. Guys failed to support all the time. People lived with non-spouses and cheated all the time.

I bet that if we looked at Ivy League grads back in 1970 versus today, the rate would be the same. The average age of married would change, but the same percentage of men would end up getting married eventually.

What we're really curious about is the increase in disparity between male and female marriage rates. I don't think we'll find the answer in the Half Sigma milieu. There have always been those Henry Higgins types, those curmudgeonly confirmed bachelors. I doubt their percentage has changed. No, I think we need to look to the proles to find our answer. And we can debate about whether it really makes a difference whether they're married or not.

[Peter]

With welfare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8,etc. lower socioeconomic women were able to reject omega males in favor of sharing bad boys.

As a prior comment noted, the key point is defining "omega males." You seem to be using it in the sense of financially marginal men, the sort who would normally be considered appropriate marriage partners for women who otherwise collect welfare and other social services. Many of them presumably would be "bad boys," a group your comment seems to treat as separate and distinct. I'm not sure if men of low socioeconomic class actually are less likely to marry than more affluent ones, and in any event it's a reasonable assumption that a significant percentage of them live with women without benefit of marriage.

"Omega males" is a term usually applied to nerdy men with poor social skills. Most of them are not of low socioeconomic class and don't seem like the type that would be interested in marrying welfare mothers (no doubt the lack of interest is mutual). Omegas in this sense almost certainly are relatively unlikely to marry, but that doesn't mean that welfare and other social services are responsible.

[K]

Spungen, I know you don't like the greek letter thing. But Peter (for once!) is pretty much right on this one.

The greek letters are almost always talking about raw sex appeal from an Evolutionary Biology standpoint. Hedge fund managers with tons of cash can be alpha. But Gangsta Rappers with multiple felonies are "alpha," (muscularity trumps felony convictions), while pasty Dockers-wearing Dilberts are rarely "alphas."

You seem to be looking at it from the standpoint of what traditionally would make a "good husband," i.e., some education, good steady job, not a drunk, etc.

So "Michael Bolton" from Office Space would be a beta, if not Omega, because he's pasty and pudgy and boring. But his grandmother would probably say "Michael was always such a nice boy, and he's even a college man with a steady job! Why in my day we would have just snapped him up."

[Peter]

Time to draw on the anecdote supply ...

I've only known of one clear-cut trophy wife situation in my life, and two marginal cases. The definite case involved an uncle of mine, a successful high-powered business executive in his early 50's who abruptly divorced his wife of 25 years, with whom he'd had four children, to marry a woman in her mid-20's who worked for him. You can imagine all the raised eyebrows this provoked. My uncle hadn't really had any dislike of his first wife, it was just that he was very concerned about growing older and figured that a new young wife would keep him young. He sort of got it right - he never did grow old, but not quite in the way he hoped.

One of the marginal cases, involving the family of an ex-girlfriend, consisted of a very affluent professional man in his mid-50's who married a woman of about 35. It was a marginal case because the age difference was 20 years at most, the man had divorced his first wife before he met the new one, and the new wife herself had been married some years prior and had a child. Also, while this is of course subjective, she wasn't really as attractive as the stereotypical trophy wife.

Finally, the second marginal case involved a much wider age gap, at least 30 and probably 35 years. The man was a prominent businessman known to my family, and quite well-to-do. It's a marginal case, however, because the new wife was well over 50, and the man was - seriously - pushing 90. He had graduated from Yale University prior to 1900 and was a veteran of the Spanish-American War. The fact that I personally knew him makes me feel very old, notwithstanding the fact that I was a small child at the time and he was a very very old man :)

[anonymous 1]

I posted this in the other thread on BU sexual values.

Women are the gatekeepers for sex and procreation, rape aside. They determine what constitutes alpha, beta or omega males. Female society (at least in America) determines whether premarital sex is acceptable or not. Men can only manipulate (via Game and see roissy's site for this) and be ranked according to the sexual standards set by female society- unless they are prepared to go around raping and abducting when they don't get their way.

If the values in America have changed with respect to sex, look to women to force further changes or not. If you really want to decrease the impact of the sexual revolution, get rid of the welfare state, and this will force women to depend on men financially more. This will increase the worth of omega and beta males. This, actually, might happen anyway with a general deterioration of America's economy, which already might be happening. Maybe sexual cycles are cyclical and dependent on the general health or sickness of the economy. Gannon, please comment on whether nerdy but well off guys who would be considered beta or omega males in America would get really hot women in Latinamerica. Thanks.

[anonymous 1]

BTW, when I say that women are the gatekeepers for sex and procreation. That is not just coming from common sense; there is some research (maybe I saw it on this site or gnxp.com) that shows that men don't have much preference for women, regardless of the race of the women. Women, on the other hand, show strong preferences based on race, height, appearance and appearance of the man. This determines racial disparities in dating/marriage. The studies are not perfect. There's a lot more I could say about that. However, it is suggestive that a good deal of the sexual preferences and sexual freedoms we have in America are due to women's desires and biases, good or bad.

[anonymous 1]

"appearance of the man" I mean, in addition to physical appearance of men, women also show biases to men with the appearance of money.

[anonymous 1]

I want to briefly touch on the subject of the dating studies that I saw. I think they are extremely helpful and important in showing some of the factors behind sex relations in America. However, the studies I've seen based on bars/clubs, internet, or speed dating weren't perfect. Common sense dictates that most men will try to get sex if it's free and seemingly safe and legal from most women. Perhaps this might not be true for extremely unattractive women. However, in general, for most men, I think this holds. So, the studies I saw really could only comment on what men and women do in the initial stage of attraction. Women show the aforementioned preferences, and men show none. What the studies couldn't comment on was what, if any, preferences might be in place for long term relationships.

In other words, would women have the same degree of preferences or would certain preferences be more or less strong? Would men have any preferences, like for race or appearance or even non- physical things like education or intelligence? Does anyone have studies that can help elucidate this? I realize what common sense tells us and what national statistics on things like interracial marriage rates vs same race marriage rates shows, but more research would be helpful.

[Peter]

If you really want to decrease the impact of the sexual revolution, get rid of the welfare state, and this will force women to depend on men financially more. This will increase the worth of omega and beta males.

See my earlier comment. When you and others refer to omega and beta men you seem to mean guys who are nerdy, often introverted and with poor social skills, but who also have above-average educational levels and, frequently, incomes. The low end of the middle class, at a minimum. Men like this aren't interested in the sort of women who collect welfare and WIC and other social service benefits. For the most part they'll prefer women with at least some middle-class values.

[K]

Men like this aren't interested in the sort of women who collect welfare and WIC and other social service benefits. For the most part they'll prefer women with at least some middle-class values.

And the preference seems to be mutual. Even if Bob Beta is OK with a heavily-tattooed, chain-smoking welfare queen, his lack of aggressiveness and machisimo much more of a liability with prole women than it is among his middle-class peers who have rejected him. And assuming a Beta with strengths*, those strengths are precisely those that prole women will be unable to appreciate, such as future-time-orientation, verbal intellect, and gentleness.

I mean, if Pierce Brosnan chatted up some of Spungen's clients, he'd probably get something like "I don't want no faggot. I want me a rassler like Hulk Hogan."

*"Napoleon Dynamite," he was not only somewhat Autistic but was completely insensitive; "Michael Bolton" was a nerd with a steady white-collar job (albeit one that has been targeted by the government as "jobs Americans won't do" and for which "THE ECONOMY" requires special H-1B quotas, many from Muslim countries).

[Gannon]

"Gannon, please comment on whether nerdy but well off guys who would be considered beta or omega males in America would get really hot women in Latinamerica. Thanks."

really hot no, but 10-15 years younger and good looking yes.
And also consider:
High class and high middle class girls won't be impressed at all with the kind of money a moderately well off American man has. On the other hand, obviously a low class woman would mean all kind of problems, from her bad habits and ignorance to her parasitic family. A US man would have to try to search for low middle class girls.

[anonymous 1]

Gannon, I have two questions for you about Latin America:
1) How much money would even a super hot high middle class girl need to see an American earn to be impressed even if they are a beta or omega nerdy male (in America).
2) How much would a beta or omega LATIN AMERICAN male who is native and living in Latin America have to earn to get a super hot Latina?

[David Alexander]

Jason is completely right. Poor prole women used to marry poor prole men, now a lot of poor women are single mothers married to the state.

Why does the state offer better benefits than dating a poor prole man? Public housing isn't particularly nicer than private housing for the poor in some cases, and even with Medicaid, emergency rooms tend to be filled with the poor who use it as a primary care facility, and from what I've read, the buying power of welfare isn't much. How did a family with two working incomes become an inferior option to a single income family? Either the wages that the beta males were earning were just insufficient, or there's significant feelings of contempt between poor males and females that leads the women to avoid the men for long term relationships. Something has changed in the community to the value of the male that has made him less valuable to a woman. If ugly rich men can attract women, one would suspect that an boring guy with a stable salary is more attractive than welfare. It's quite possible that something "wiped" away that kind of men in the segments of the population with high single mother out of wedlock homes.

[Gannon]

Man, remember one of Roissei's biggest advices: you can't buy a woman's love through money. In fact, spending a lot of money on a woman might have a negative effect.
Remember, you can't buy a woman through money alone. Having said that,obviously money helps. Let me leaborate...
First of all, I know rather well Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, these are the richest and whitest and most civiliced countries of Latin America, which resemble a lot the poorer parts of Italy and Spain and are completely different from the shithole most of Central America is. They are also much more advanced than the other countries of Southamerica, and have something resembling a middleclass. The US is really a workers paradise, a communist dream in the sense that proles can really make good money and an excellent living. A truckdriver in the US can buy a nice house with airconditioning, swimming pool and if he saves even a Lexus. The US is very egalitarian, and the differences between the social classes -although they obviously exit- aren't that big (very few people have maids for example, and the living quality between the daughter from a succesful trucker isn't that different than the one from a doctor. But in Latinamerica, money makes a real difference, and it is still rather difficult to earn. Also, Latinamerican men, even the richer ones, have the pesky habit of knocking up girls and disappearing. Americans have fame of being good family fathers, something a future mother in law will appreciate.
So yes, money helps, probaly more than in the US but it's not enough. Also, high middle class girls will have been raise with nannies and gardeners in big houses, so it won't be easy to impress them. remember however, that in Argentina you can get a lot of things for a lot of less money than in the US (big houses, maids). A maid in Argentia (full time) earns around 300 US per month, and a family to be considered high middle class needs about 60.000 US dollars of income annualy. So a US man, to be on eaul footing, would have to need a disposable income of around 60.000 US per year to an equal, relatively easy to earn in the US but difficult in Argentina. Also, it's much more than just about money. A US man would also have to prove that he is an educated man, of a food social position in his homeland. Young high middle class girls have good suitors, goodlooking highmidlleclass boys their age up to ten years older, aqnd tend to have good lives and the support of the family.
Money just isn't enough.
But, like I said, to impress a high middle class girl you must generate an income of at least 50.000 US annualy TO LIVE AT HER ACOSTUMES LYFESTYLE IN ARGENTINA.

[Gannon]

@DA:
If the woman marries or even resides together with the prole man, she looses her benefits (at least in Germany). In general, Food stamps, a social security check and free/cheap/subsidized housing gives a person a better income than a wage from Walmart. Also, the state always pays whereas the man can loose his job or drink and gamble away his wage. Also, the owman doesn't have to worry about a drunk man in the house and doesn't get beaten up. Really, the state is a better and more stable provider, why bother with a man, and when the woman ocasionaly wants sex she just picks a man from a bar.

[David Alexander]

If the woman marries or even resides together with the prole man, she looses her benefits (at least in Germany)

That's true in the United States as well for the majority of benefits.

In general, Food stamps, a social security check and free/cheap/subsidized housing gives a person a better income than a wage from Walmart.

IIRC, pre-1997 classical welfare never paid more than minimum wage. Wal-Mart in some markets pays nearly twice the federal minimum wage. In addition, the subsidized housing isn't any better and in some cases, any cheaper than its private counterpart.

Even with the elimination of perpetual

Really, the state is a better and more stable provider, why bother with a man, and when the woman ocasionaly wants sex she just picks a man from a bar.

Is the solution to the dependency of women upon the State to eliminate social programs to force her into the hands of a low wage male that maybe drunk and violent, or to repair the men in order to reduce their bad tendencies. One may argue that poor women can marry good men, but softy beta types like David have their standards, and there's a difference between a middle class girl with one child and her ghetto counterpart with several kids with different fathers.

very few people have maids for example

One of the reasons that we have few maids is the high cost of employing them. You'd have to pay relatively competitive wages to what private industry and government offers, and no middle class American family could afford the wages, payroll tax, and health care needed to support such a lifestyle. Amongst the upper middle class, the nannies that are employed are illegal immigrants, and their employers generally do not pay payroll or FICA taxes for their nannies or maids.

Interestingly, one could argue that we have maids by stealth, where various service-oriented businesses perform similar tasks to a maid. Just look at all the casual dining restaurants that serve as alternatives to food cooked at home, or the various daycare and nursery services for working mothers.

that in Argentina you can get a lot of things for a lot of less money than in the US

I've stated in private that I'd visit Argentina just for the ability to have a full course steak dinner for $10 USD. Hell, I'd over tip everybody and give money to the poor street children just because of the buying power...

Gannon, most Americans seem to conflate poor and rich Latin American countries, and most Americans mentally connect Argentina with thoughts of the film Evita (Peronist wife/champion of the poor) or the financial crisis of a few years ago. While Argentina does have favelas, it's still a relatively stable, but corrupt country where the upper middle class lives rather decently. As you pointed out, a middle class American male isn't going to win over a country-club member down there, but a "working class" girl may have find a foreigner attractive.

[John Smith]

The per capita GDP of ANY Latin American country is DIRECTLY proportional the the white fraction in the country.

The problem is, is that the poorer the country (meaning American $ more powerful), the more ugly quechua and native girls there are.

Just go to Brazil and save yourself the hassle.

[Gannon]

@John Smith: Brazil is greta if you like mulato girls.

[anonymous 1]

"Just go to Brazil and save yourself the hassle."

Maybe South Brazil, which is still heavily European White- Gannon correct me if I'm wrong, please. But, every other part of Brazil is heavily mixed (the mixed unions of Black, Amerindian and Europeans predominate).

[Gannon]

@anomymous: that's pretty much right.

[kurt9]

"The per capita GDP of ANY Latin American country is DIRECTLY proportional the the white fraction in the country."

This begs the question: Is this because the non-white people are too stupid to be economically productive (the human biodiversity argument) or is this because the white fraction have created a "feudal"-type economic system with cartels and monopolies that keep the non-white people down?

Despite all of the carefully considered arguments of the biodiversity people, I cannot help but think that the second argument is true.

[David Alexander]

Kurt, I've always had trouble figuring this out as well. I've always wondered if any sense of nationalism or duty doesn't compel leaders of poorer nations to desire to turn their homelands into modern civilizations like Western Europe or North America? It's almost as if looting the state for wealth opportunities is a better option than building a nation and creating a historic legacy.

[SFG]

These dudes are just sociopaths. It's hard for guys like you with consciences to understand, but they just want to fill their pockets; they don't care about their country. Most alpha males are somewhat sociopathic.

[anonymous 1]

"Despite all of the carefully considered arguments of the biodiversity people, I cannot help but think that the second argument is true."

Except that certain minority groups do well in the Anglosphere and nations of those groups do well in the global arena (i.e. China, Japan, and to a lesser degree, India, for example).

Also, the under- performance of certain groups in those countries does not necessarily improve once they get to lands with better opportunities, like America. They still need handouts of some sort.

There may be some pilfering of the third world country by higher IQ groups, as you imply, but don't insult our intelligence or yours by assuming that is all that's going on, especially when you don't give any evidence for your assertion. Plus, South Africa and Zimbabwe are finding out what it's like to have an exodus of high IQ talent. I note you don't mention stuff like that.

[anonymous 1]

BTW, kurt9, if you actually want to research an issue that is a lot more complicated than you're making it out, read Amy Chua's 'World on Fire.' It discusses the issue of market dominant majorities around the world in a lot more depth.

[Gannon]

Whites tend to have much more future time orientation, which is associated to an higher IQ but also to higher education.
For example, in Chile under Allende UP some landowners were expropiated. The peasants just couldn't handle the land. The first thing a lot of peasanst did was to slaughetr the cows and steers to make quick cash. Obviously, a year later the cash had been spent on alcohol, no milk was produced and the remaining cows couldn't get impreganated. The problem is that poor people, and specially low IQ people have a very sort future time orientation.

[YUPPPDDD]

"It's hard for guys like you with consciences to understand, but they just want to fill their pockets; they don't care about their country. Most alpha males are somewhat sociopathic."

Except that having a conscience is not something a lot of hot women care about compared to having alpha male traits, like having means, good genes, romantic swings and daddy dreams (yes, I shamelessly copied roissy). So, if hard working, nerdy beta male types are not rewarded by women in this society, I suspect those dependable beta male traits will start to decline in prevalence, and you will have society with more sociopathic alpha males (and sociopathic alpha females, btw) without a conscience- exactly what women really unconsciously want all along. Maybe women are more sociopathic than the average alpha male.

[Voice of Reason]

**The problem is that poor people, and specially low IQ people have a very sort future time orientation.**

So get rid of the low IQ people who suck up extra resources...

[David Alexander]

Gannon, given Chile's immense copper resources, wouldn't the better solution have been to industrialize and find industrial work for the peasants?

[David Alexander]

For example, in Chile under Allende UP some landowners were expropiated.

The question is how do you reconcile the poor's demand for land ownership and the benefits of economic growth without becoming Zimbabwe? The extreme answers of genocide or genetic engineering aren't feasible for numerous reasons, particularly in the short and medium term. Are the poor (and low IQ) just going to have to accept being sharecroppers or tenant farmers, or are we going to have to accept the majority will of the people to be in control of their nations and its economic resources?

[Gannon]

Allende nationalized the American owned copper mines and transfered the to Codelco. The junta gave back most expropiated land and confiscated land back to its Chilean rightful owners, with the exception of Codelco. Codelco creates huge revenue for Chile, and the newer foreign owned mines pay taxes, and taxation will be raised. Chile is the richest country in the region, but also like Brazil extremely unequal in its income distribution. Industrialization isn't really an option for Chile. The wages are too high (1,30 US per hour) to produce cheaply and the workers lack the skill of more advanced nation. Chile mainly exports minerals (specially copper) and agricultural products, which values have been steadily raisng in the international market. Workers in the mines earn good wages (1500 US per month)in the north of Chile, but agricultural workers lead poor lives (300 US per month) in the central and southern part of this country. Chile's population is around 30 percent white, 8 percent Indian and the rest is mainly composed of white looking mestizos, except in the north, where the mestizo is much darker.

[SFG]

Except that having a conscience is not something a lot of hot women care about compared to having alpha male traits, like having means, good genes, romantic swings and daddy dreams (yes, I shamelessly copied roissy).
Of course! Women are well known for loving bad boys.

So, if hard working, nerdy beta male types are not rewarded by women in this society, I suspect those dependable beta male traits will start to decline in prevalence, and you will have society with more sociopathic alpha males (and sociopathic alpha females, btw) without a conscience- exactly what women really unconsciously want all along. Maybe women are more sociopathic than the average alpha male.
Wouldn't surprise me. I wonder if this has something to do with the r-versus-k strategizing division Rushton hypothesized; maybe the long history of Chinese civilization penalized alpha males because they couldn't spread their seed around. Would also explain the tendency of Chinese women to date white nerds.

[anonymous 1]

DA:
"The extreme answers of genocide or genetic engineering aren't feasible for numerous reasons, particularly in the short and medium term."
Genetic engineering is coming because China won't hesitate to produce potential uber-humans. The idea that there will be possible problems in the short and medium term is a fair point to consider. The world may have to give handouts to the 'normals' until everybody's kid has the uber- human genes for IQ, height and looks. Pretending that genetic engineering can be avoided is futile, however.

[SFG]

You'll probably see a gap between the rich and poor, as these techniques will cost money at first. So after years of bragging about superior breeding when they're actually inbred twits, the rich will actually be of superior breeding!

[roissy]

i've written about the hierarchy of alpha, beta, and omega males here:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/defining-the-alpha-male/

bottom line: you can avoid the nuisance of defining the alpha man based on specific character traits and quantifiable yardsticks (which are highly time and context dependent) by instead sticking to the proven method of identifying them by the number of women he attracts, the hotness of those women, and the strength of their attraction for him.