The Atlantic: So Is Living Together Before Marriage Linked to Divorce or What?

It’s not unheard of for contemporaneous studies on the same topic to come to opposite conclusions, but it’s somewhat surprising for them to do so after analyzing so much of the same data. Both studies analyzed several cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), a longitudinal dataset of women (and men, starting in 2002) between the ages of 15 and 44, though Kuperberg’s study incorporates some data from another survey as well. Still, this isn’t the first time researchers have come to differing conclusions about the the implications of premarital cohabitation. The phenomenon has been studied for more 25 years, and there’s been significant disagreement from the start as to whether premarital cohabitation increases couples’ risk of divorce. Differences in researchers’ methodology and priorities account for some of that disagreement. But in the curious, still-developing story of whether cohabitation does or doesn’t affect odds of divorce, subjectivity on the part of researchers and the public may also play a leading role.[...]

However, over the years, many researchers began wondering whether earlier findings that linked cohabitation to divorce were a relic of a time when living together before marriage was an unconventional thing to do. Indeed, as cohabitation has become more normalized, it has ceased to be so strongly linked to divorce. Author Steffen Reinhold, of the University of Mannheim’s Research Institute for the Economics of Aging, pointed out in 2010 that in European countries, the correlation disappeared when the cohabitation-before-marriage rate among the married adults reached about 50 percent; the U.S. seemed to have just gotten to this threshold. In 2012, a study in the Journal of Marriage and Family concluded that “since the mid-1990s, whether men or women cohabited with their spouse prior to marriage is not related to marital stability.” This is the same journal that just published a study finding the opposite.

Galena Rhoades, a psychologist at the University of Denver, has a few theories as to why it’s so difficult to glean what effect, if any, cohabitation has on marital stability. For one, she says, it’s hard to study divorce in ways that are useful and accurate, because the best data sets take so long to collect. Many people don’t get divorced until many years into their marriages, and the social norms around cohabitation in the U.S. have evolved quickly, so “if we study a cohort of people who got married 20 years ago, by the time we have the data on whether they got a divorce or not, their experience in living together and their experience of the social norms around living together are from 20 years ago,” Rhoades says. In other words, by the time researchers have enough longitudinal data to know whether one is meaningfully linked to the other, the social norms that shaped the findings will hardly be of use to couples today trying to figure out how how cohabitation could affect their relationship. Thus, Rhoades says, longitudinal studies tend to paint a fuller picture of the relationship between living together and divorce, while also simultaneously telling Americans today less about the time they actually live in.[...]

As researchers moves toward a more nuanced understanding of what cohabitation means for the future of unmarried romantic partners, there are several factors that the experts I spoke with believe urgently need to be taken into account. Lehmiller says studies of cohabitation should start working with data sets that include same-sex couples and move away from equating the stability of a marriage with its success. “Some people have views about marriage that would lead them to stay in one even if it’s not satisfying,” he says. In other words, just because a marriage lasts doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best outcome for either party involved.

read the article

Political Critique: The far right knocks on the the door of Spanish politics

On Sunday October 7, the Spanish far right party Vox achieved what they had been looking for for a long time: their baptism as a relevant political actor in the Spanish public sphere. They did it by filling the Vistalegre palace in Madrid with 10,000 supporters and leaving a thousand people out for lack of space. In the past few years, Vistalegre has symbolically become the venue used by Podemos for their annual congresses. The choice of the venue for this event is not coincidental: Vox is explicitly looking for parallels with the first Podemos. They want to turn the political indignation of a certain sector of the Spanish right into political capital. And to achieve this they hope to use the springboard of the European elections. In this sense, it’s fundamental to note that there are people within the Vox party who are studying the political campaign and strategy of Podemos in 2014, when the party entered candidates for the 2014 European Parliament election, polling with 7.98% of the national vote.[...]

In the arena, well beyond the burladero, there is a first row where writers, historians, journalists and even bullfighters, all identifying within the far right spectrum in Spain, gather together looking at the audience. However, the absences are more surprising: Vox had invited international personalities from other European political parties, both from the ENL parliamentary group (which brings together in Brussels the National Front, the Northern League, the Austrian FPÖ or the Freedom Party of Geert Wilders) and from the parliamentary group of the European Conservatives and Reformists, where Polish, Czech and British conservatives meet. But none of them attended. Not even Steve Bannon, whose presence was speculated a few weeks before.[...]

Vox’s strategy for the next year’s electoral cycle rests on three pillars: appeal to a vote of conviction, use politically incorrect language and indicate very clearly who the enemies are. Namely: the Catalan independence movement, feminism and immigration.With these wicks, the party led by Santiago Abascal will try to be involved in all the decisive issue on Spanish agenda and, in the end, win everything. Some polls indicate that Vox will foreseeable reach parliamentary representation in the European Parliament and that it could be decisive when it comes to deciding the balances between left and right in some regions such as Madrid or Murcia.

read the article

Aeon: What do we consent to when we consent to sex?

If the presumption of the hypothetical fistee is ableist, the presumption of the complainants, juries and judges that masculine-presenting intimate partners have a penis is heteronormative (and the convictions are transphobic). One might reasonably expect her masculine-presenting partner to be penis-bearing. But if that expectation is unmet, the state should not thereby prosecute that partner for rape. Consider a partner with an unforgivingly large, disappointingly small or stubbornly flaccid penis. Here too expectations have been unmet, but no crime is committed.[...]

Second, it is important to understand that some questions are or should be unanswerable as legal truth claims. When it comes to sex, there should be no legally actionable way to answer the question: ‘Are you a man?’ Is gender a matter of genitals, hormones, chromosomes, secondary sex characteristics, social inequality or self-identification? The law cannot bring any clear answer to this question. One should not be convicted of sexual assault for failing to live up to a phallocentric standard of manhood.[...]

As for applicability: many people suppose that sex with nonhuman animals is wrong because animals cannot consent. But are animals really the kinds of creatures capable of consenting? Can Fido ‘consent’ or not to fetch? If you do believe animals such as cows can proffer consent, I would wager they are less likely to consent to becoming a cheeseburger than to sex.

listen to the podcast or read the article

The Atlantic: The EU Has Rejected Italy's Budget. That's Just What Rome Wanted.

That fundamental incoherence met its biggest test yet on Tuesday, when the European Union rejected Italy’s 2019 draft budget—an unprecedented move against a eurozone country—saying its deficit targets and wishful thinking about growth posed a serious threat to economic stability in Europe. Italy now has three weeks to submit a revised budget.[...]

The wrist slap from Europe—or was it a melodramatically slammed door?—is exactly what the Italian government may have wanted. The driving force in the government, Matteo Salvini—the bellicose interior minister, deputy prime minister, and head of the League party—came to power spoiling for a fight with Europe. His senior coalition partner (who comes across as junior), the Five Star Movement’s Luigi Di Maio, also got elected on promises of redefining Italy’s relationship to Europe. Together, they form a government that needs enemies in order to justify its existence. Europe, with its irritating, sovereignty-straining rules and austerity measures, is an enemy.[...]

The government’s game of chicken with Europe might backfire. “It might be a lose-lose proposition,” Fubini continued. “If they hold on, it can be very damaging to the economy,” he said of the rising borrowing rates. “But if they step back, there is an element of face loss. So I think it kind of has to get worse before they change tactics.”

read the article

Politico: Europe needs tax system overhaul for digital age

Personal income tax was deployed in the 1910s to make the most of the rise of salaried jobs: taxing workers’ income was made easier by the introduction of the worker’s salary, a single-sourced, recurring revenue stream. The modern corporate tax on profits, meanwhile, was established in the 1920s by a group of economists working for the League of Nations to avoid large corporations seeing their profits taxed twice by two different governments as they expanded their businesses across national borders. VAT was invented in the 1950s to account for the lengthening of value chains in many industries. [...]

This realization gave rise to a more practical idea: Instead of fixing the current, dysfunctional corporate taxation, we could simply get rid of it altogether and levy taxes exclusively on individuals rather than corporations, by taxing personal income on one hand (personal income tax and payroll tax, for example), and individual transactions on the other (such as with VAT or sales taxes).

There are three obstacles to implementing such as revolutionary change. First, renouncing taxing profits would privilege certain individuals over others and raise questions of fairness. In many cases (but not all), taxing corporate profits is simply a way to correct the imbalance, from a tax perspective, between workers and shareholders and to prevent the latter from escaping income taxation altogether. Indeed, taxing a corporation’s profits is simply a centralized way of taxing its shareholders’ dividends. It also makes it possible for a government to tax dividends paid to foreign shareholders.

The second obstacle is that in the current state of tax administration, it’s still much easier to tax a corporation’s profits than to go after its many individual stakeholders. A corporation is a hub for financial flows: Prices paid by customers and paid to suppliers; wages paid to workers; dividends and stock buybacks paid to shareholders. Instead of running after each of those individuals to tax their income or the transactions they take part in, it’s easier to tax the corporation itself — all the more so because it has a proper accounting system and various auditors and legal services that can certify the corporation’s financial position and operating results. Individuals, on the other hand, are harder to track, scattered, and often messy in their personal finances.

read the article

Politico: Macron gives EU tech tax a political push

The French-led push fits into broader European efforts to rein in Silicon Valley companies, ranging from a $5 billion antitrust fine against Google to ongoing investigations into Facebook’s data practices. The large tech firms have so far responded by ramping up their lobbying efforts in the European capital, while U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has warned the Europeans against jeopardizing tech investment — although so far Washington has stopped short of bringing the digital tax issue into its argument with Brussels over trade. [...]

While Paris claims to have the backing of 19 countries including the United Kingdom — whose chancellor, Philip Hammond, has pledged to “go it alone” on such a tax — it’s far from garnering the unanimous support needed for the measure to pass. A group of countries led by Ireland and including Estonia, Sweden and the Czech Republic remains strongly opposed.[...]

Tech firms’ opposition to the tax plan is due mainly to its long-term implications rather than any immediate financial impact. Under the current proposal, which was put forward by the European Commission for consideration by EU states by year-end, companies with substantial digital operations in the EU — those generating more than €750 million in annual revenue — would be subject to the new tax. The Commission has suggested a tax of 3 percent on revenues would raise some €5 billion a year. [...]

The problem for tech companies has more to do with the fact that France, and many EU allies, want to enshrine the idea of taxing value added from the collection and deployment of personal data for advertising — in other words, the engine at the core of Facebook, Google, Twitter and, increasingly, Amazon’s wildly successful business models. A European tax on data could prompt other countries to impose similar measures — just as Japan, South Korea, South Africa and a slew of other countries have imposed their own variations of Europe’s far-reaching data privacy rules.

read the article

Politico: Hungary and Poland’s multispeed Europe

Of course, not joining the euro and being circumspect over immigration and asylum are legitimate policy choices (even if, for instance, 53 percent of Hungarians are supportive of the common European currency). But one should be under no illusion about the consequences. The monetary union is by far the EU’s most important political project, and as such it’s bound to be at the center of the bloc’s integration efforts.[...]

As the United Kingdom, the EU’s second (or third, depending on what measure one uses) largest economy, leaves the bloc altogether, the periphery will look much less attractive. True, there will still be Denmark, with its opt-out from the common currency, and Sweden, where voters rejected adopting the euro in a 2003 referendum. Few others, however, see non-euro EU membership as an attractive destination. Bulgaria, for example, agreed in July with the Eurogroup on initiating the process leading to membership in the monetary union — a first such attempt since January 2014, when Latvia and Lithuania adopted the common currency.[...]

Bulgaria has also committed itself “to thoroughly implement the reforms monitored by the Commission under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption and organized crime.” It is hard to imagine the governments in Budapest and Warsaw acquiescing to similar demands, even symbolically, while also continuing in their widespread authoritarian abuses. [...]

As a result, the periphery is going to be an increasingly lonely, awkward place. It was, after all, the inability to commit itself fully to the European project that helped to drive the U.K. to its 2016 Brexit referendum. For Poland, Hungary, and also the Czech Republic the problem is primarily political. Staying out of the eurozone denies the three post-communist countries a place at the table for weighing in on key decisions.

read the article

UnHerd: Germany’s identity crisis

The standard interpretation of the recent vote is that the entrance of Alternative for Germany, or AfD, into the Bavarian Landtag (legislature) is another example of Germany’s inability to deal with its nationalistic element. In fact, a closer look shows that the real issue is not how to deal with nationalism but how to define it. All sides in the election were propounding their own views about what German nationalism, and its peculiar Bavarian interpretation, is about.[...]

Their sense of nation included acceptance of change and growth, but only against the backdrop of an ethnic German supermajority and a Christian-influenced public morality. Feeling betrayed by the CSU, nearly one in eight Bavarians supported the radically anti-Islamic AfD in last year’s federal vote, with proportions rising in the CSU’s rural, Catholic heartland. [...]

The CSU therefore staved off catastrophic defeat, but only at a great cost. The AfD share of the vote dropped compared with the 2017 Bundestag election in rural regions and small towns, and some of those voters returned to the CSU. The FW, however, also gained some of these voters as they were a safe protest party for those who wanted to send the CSU a message.

In the cities, the CSU defined itself in a way that proved unacceptable to economically conservative but culturally liberal voters who want a Germany that is open to migrants and the world. The SPD’s collapse also showed that the old ways no longer hold; the two parties combined for less than a majority of the vote. The centre held, but just barely.[...]

Meanwhile, the AfD is now the largest party in the former communist East. Combined with the party descended from the former Communists, Die Linke, nearly half of East Germany’s voters support a party of either the far Left or far Right. Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems that East Germany’s politics have more in common with those of their former Warsaw Pact allies, where Right or Left-wing populism is also rising, than of the western part of the nation they now call home.

read the article

BBC: Clever crows reveal 'window into the mind'

New Caledonian crows are known to spontaneously use tools in the wild. This task, designed by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Seewiesen, Germany, and the University of Oxford, presented the birds with a novel problem that they needed to make a new tool in order to solve.[...]

The sticks were designed to be combinable - one was hollow to allow the other to slot inside. And with no demonstration or help, four out of the eight crows inserted one stick into another and used the resulting longer tool to fish for and extract the food from the box. [...]

And this study, he added, has reinforced the evidence that the crows have "highly flexible abilities" that allow them to solve novel problems very quickly with tools they have never seen before.

The researchers suspect that the crows might do this by envisaging a simulation of the problem in front of them - playing out different actions in their brains until they figure out the solution.[...]

The problem-solving demonstrations could also help in the development of artificial intelligence in robots - to discover ways to build machines that are also able to reach "autonomous creative solutions" to new problems.

read the article