Christopher Ingraham of Wonkblog writes about a new analysis of family data data by Nicholas Wolfinger:
Conventional wisdom has it that the older you are when you get married, the lower your chances for divorce. But a fascinating new analysis of family data by Nicholas H. Wolfinger, a sociologist at the University of Utah, suggests that after a certain point, the risk of divorce starts to rise again as you get older.
See Wolfinger’s report at Family Studies: Want to Avoid Divorce? Wait to Get Married, But Not Too Long.
See also his follow up, Replicating the Goldilocks Theory of Marriage and Divorce.
The National Vital Statistics System released Births: Preliminary Data for 2014. The general fertility rate increased by 1% (the first increase since 2007), though the birth rate for teenagers and women aged 20-24 continued to decrease (both rates are at historic lows). The birth rates for women aged 30-34 and 35-39 seem to be driving the overall fertility increase: the number of births in these age groups increase by 4% and 5% respectively.
The Pew Research Center examined data from the U.S. Census Bureau report “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013” and found that the poverty rate for black children has stayed steady even as the rate for other groups declines.
The NY Times’ Upshot analyzed data from the Equality of Opportunity group and found that where you grow up affects your chances marrying by age 26.
The most striking geographical pattern on marriage, as with so many other issues today, is the partisan divide. Spending childhood nearly anywhere in blue America — especially liberal bastions like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and Washington — makes people about 10 percentage points less likely to marry relative to the rest of the country. And no place encourages marriage quite like the conservative Mountain West, especially the heavily Mormon areas of Utah, southern Idaho and parts of Colorado.
Amelia Thomson-Deveaux and Hayley Munguia of FiveThirtyEight examine the different ways abortion is measured in the United States and how difficult it is to gain a deep understanding of abortion trends based on these measures.
See also: The Abortion Rate Is Falling Because Fewer Women Are Getting Pregnant.
Emily Oster of FiveThirtyEight examines various claims about the benefits of breastfeeding:
If one takes the claims seriously, it is not difficult to conclude that breastfed babies are all thin, rich geniuses who love their mothers and are never sick a day in their lives while formula-fed babies become overweight, low-IQ adults who hate their parents and spend most of their lives in the hospital.
The truth is complicated.
Data from the 2011 Survey of Income and Program Participation were used to create this infographic. Click on it to see the full size image.
[Source: U.S. Census Bureau]
Your Body, (Not) Your Choice is a collaboration between Katie Kowalsky, Dylan Moriarty, and Robin Tolochko for the Interactive Cartography & Geovisualization course at UW-Madison.
Due to complex laws, political jargon, and emotional fervor, abortion policy is a contentious topic. There is a wealth of information and misinformation. The combination of vague terminology and lack of uniformity among state laws makes it difficult to interpret the true national status of abortion rights.
The map shows various abortion policies, such as mandated counseling, waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds by state and over time.
H/T Flowing Data
An article in Wonkblog explores Robert Putnam’s new book Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis and the influence he has had on politicians as diverse as President Obama and congressman Paul Ryan.
From the article:
For the past three years, Putnam has been nursing an outlandish ambition. He wants inequality of opportunity for kids to be the central issue in the 2016 presidential election. Not how big government should be or what the “fair share” is for the wealthy, but what’s happening to children boxed out of the American dream.
His manifesto, “ Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis” will be published Tuesday. It places brain science, sociology and census data alongside stories of children growing up on both sides of the divide. Many of the findings draw on the work of other researchers who have long studied families, education or neuroscience. But Putnam has gathered up these strands under a single thesis: that instead of talking about inequality of wealth or income among adults, we ought to focus on inequalities in all of the ways children accumulate — or never touch — opportunity.