Missing Men and the Biolgical Clock

[HerCrazierHalf]

I think that might be a quirk of contemporary culture.

Probably. All I know is that most issues raised about teen parenthood still exist into age 20 and beyond.

 

[pensmama87]

Probably. All I know is that most issues raised about teen parenthood still exist into age 20 and beyond.

Hm, I think that’s probably highly dependent on the parents, and whether or not they are married. I got married at 23 (my husband was 24), and had babies at 24, 26, and 28. I’m 30 now and pregnant with baby #4. Financially, it was difficult at first, but my husband and I both came from intact homes, we were both marriage minded and educated. We both had “real jobs.”

I don’t feel I missed out on anything. I did enough frivolous living in my college years. I started having kids young enough that even if I still have little ones in my 40s, I’ll be able to do quite a bit for “fun” that wouldn’t be possible if I only had littles at that age (plus the help of taking care of them, when it’s harder on the body then, whether you’ve had prior kids or not.)

My husband and I were not weirdos from courtship culture. Just knew we wanted marriage and families and came from homes that supported that, so even in our teens it was something we paid attention to. And when we met and liked each other, we didn’t play (too many) stupid games.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Female fertility begins to decrease from age thirty-two and rapidly increases after thirty-seven years. Also the risk of having a child with a birth defect is increased in older women. When older than thirty-five years, the first time during pregnancy is more likely to develop high blood pressure and related disorders.

Is that a reason that it’s wrong, though?

 

[Xantippe]

It’s kind of counterintuitive in a way. When I married, back in earlier times, it was sort of assumed that newlyweds would start out poor, and grow into a mutual life together. We were both living with parents in middle class homes. Marriage meant a step down in material conditions, to a small apartment.

With kids though, at least the young have more stamina than the middle aged in dealing with them.

That set up does assume birth control (or at least very effective NFP).

In pre-birth control days, parents were leery of that approach, because the couple would be likely to spiral into deeper and deeper poverty as their family grew, likely needing more and more help from extended family. (See 19th century novels where young couples are often kept apart by the fact that their families don’t think they have enough to marry on, and the consequences for marrying without parental approval might be very dire.)

 

[Xantippe]

Is that a reason that it’s wrong, though?

There’s also the question–if older motherhood is so dire, why isn’t that a serious reason for Catholics to avoid pregnancy after 35 (or whatever)?

 

[JimG]

That set up does assume birth control (or at least very effective NFP).

In pre-birth control days, parents were leery of that approach, because the couple would be likely to spiral into deeper and deeper poverty as their family grew, likely needing more and more help from extended family. (See 19th century novels where young couples are often kept apart by the fact that their families don’t think they have enough to marry on, and the consequences for marrying without parental approval might be very dire.)

Well, maybe. But going back into even earlier days, my own parents, who married while my father was in a very low paying factory job, had their first two kids within two years, then went on to have three more. I don’t know how they did it, but we never felt poor. On the other hand, in those days there wasn’t really much to buy, or even covet, except groceries and clothes.

In more recent times, I’ve known couples who married in college or graduate school, really started out comparatively poor by today’s standards, but then went on to have families or four or five children rather quickly, while also increasing their income and becoming more wealthy.

 

[Xantippe]

Well, maybe. But going back into even earlier days, my own parents, who married while my father was in a very low paying factory job, had their first two kids within two years, then went on to have three more. I don’t know how they did it, but we never felt poor. On the other hand, in those days there wasn’t really much to buy, or even covet, except groceries and clothes.

In more recent times, I’ve known couples who married in college or graduate school, really started out comparatively poor by today’s standards, but then went on to have families or four or five children rather quickly, while also increasing their income and becoming more wealthy.

Without a reasonable hope of increased income in future, that would tend to mean dependence on government programs for a young couple attempting to do that today (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.). And this is where you eventually wind up:

patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2015/04/17/the-day-i-bought-steak-with-my-food-stamps/

In addition to unreliability of employment, I think one of the big hurdles for a young couple today is dealing with healthcare expenses/insurance expenses. I think that largely explains the high median income of married couples in the US today (that TPCWife might have been talking about)–it just takes that much income to be in a position where one can safely cover one’s healthcare expenses and insurance expenses.

Here’s a piece by a father of a large family talking about how they just can’t do Dave Ramsey and Dave Ramsey is a big meany pants.

crisismagazine.com/2013/of-dave-ramsey-babies-and-birth-control

I have some quibbles with that piece, but here’s something the author wrote in the comments:

"You’ll recall in my story that we were able to achieve debt-free (except the mortgage) status for a period of time, but then we were blessed with additional children. Even if we had “planned” those children and had adequately budgeted for them, we couldn’t have foreseen the fact that our Nicky would require open heart surgery.

"Nick, our sixth, also has Down syndrome. Before he was born, we had resisted applying for Medicaid to avoid depending on government aid. Today I’m incredibly grateful to the social worker who urged us to enroll him after he was born because, even with good insurance, the co-pay for his heart surgery a year later ran into the tens of thousands. We would’ve been sunk.

“So, government assistance, credit cards from time to time, personal loans from generous friends and family – we get by. Yes, we’re in debt and on the dole, but the bottom line is this: The world is a better place because Nick is here. And his little sister, Katharine. Like you, I’d take a full quiver over a full bank account any day.”

So that’s how they get by–government assistance, debt, and help from friends and family.

I’m not going to throw rocks at that family but as you can see, it’s not really a question of frugality in this context–they can’t triple coupon their way out of paying for open-heart surgery.

 

[JimG]

Without a reasonable hope of increased income in future, that would tend to mean dependence on government programs for a young couple attempting to do that today (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.). And this is where you eventually wind up:

patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2015/04/17/the-day-i-bought-steak-with-my-food-stamps/

In addition to unreliability of employment, I think one of the big hurdles for a young couple today is dealing with healthcare expenses/insurance expenses. I think that largely explains the high median income of married couples in the US today (that TPCWife might have been talking about)–it just takes that much income to be in a position where one can safely cover one’s healthcare expenses and insurance expenses.

Here’s a piece by a father of a large family talking about how they just can’t do Dave Ramsey and Dave Ramsey is a big meany pants.

crisismagazine.com/2013/of-dave-ramsey-babies-and-birth-control

I have some quibbles with that piece, but here’s something the author wrote in the comments:

"You’ll recall in my story that we were able to achieve debt-free (except the mortgage) status for a period of time, but then we were blessed with additional children. Even if we had “planned” those children and had adequately budgeted for them, we couldn’t have foreseen the fact that our Nicky would require open heart surgery.

"Nick, our sixth, also has Down syndrome. Before he was born, we had resisted applying for Medicaid to avoid depending on government aid. Today I’m incredibly grateful to the social worker who urged us to enroll him after he was born because, even with good insurance, the co-pay for his heart surgery a year later ran into the tens of thousands. We would’ve been sunk.

“So, government assistance, credit cards from time to time, personal loans from generous friends and family – we get by. Yes, we’re in debt and on the dole, but the bottom line is this: The world is a better place because Nick is here. And his little sister, Katharine. Like you, I’d take a full quiver over a full bank account any day.”

So that’s how they get by–government assistance, debt, and help from friends and family.

I’m not going to throw rocks at that family but as you can see, it’s not really a question of frugality in this context–they can’t triple coupon their way out of paying for open-heart surgery.

I think you are right about the enormous difference that health care and health insurance makes, in addition to the increased living expenses overall. Medical insurance wasn’t even available to me until I was in my first real job, and medical expenses were a lot cheaper. My wife and I paid off a hospital and doctor bills following a one month hospitalization with no insurance, but at that time it only came to around $4000 total. Now, that would be a cheap deductible. I am astounded at the premiums my niece and nephew pay for individual health insurance with such high deductibles and high co-pays as to make it almost pointless.

 

[JimG]

Just finished reading the linked Crisis magazine article, and can’t help but quote this part:

That seems to be a pretty accurate picture of the tension between Ramsey’s approach to family finances and the Church’s approach to family: Ramsey posits planning and control that revolves around money, whereas the Church advocates abandonment and surrender revolving around generous openness to new life—something that doesn’t always make sense on the spreadsheet. And, like it or not, that abandonment, surrender, and generosity can’t be budgeted for nor planned. It’s not math; it’s more like falling in love.

Even the Pew Research Center gets this, as demonstrated in their study on parents and kids. “When it comes to feeling happy,” the study concludes, “time with children … beats time at work.” Does this create a paradox for those trying to follow the Ramsey way? You bet! Dave would have those parents out working a second job in order to pare down their debt and work toward a life of leisure in the future. But what does our gut tell us? Second*or third job? Naah. Instead, follow Pope Francis’ advice: “Waste time with your children.”

 

[ThePCWife]

Dave Ramsey is giving advice for people living in exurbs who are spending to relieve the stress and alienation and social isolation by giving them a goal to reach for via spending less and a non-crazy social online and possibly local community of affinity.

It has never, ever, ever, until the last couple of decades been “normal” or “average” to spend all day every day with almost entirely your own children and just mom and no leaving the house except to buy groceries and go to church, and often not even the latter every week. And it’s still not that normal, as evidenced by the fact that women will take a job SO THAT they can spend time with their infants and also other adults. (Professional class women have the option of childcare where they can visit their kids throughout the day and easily get back to work, and working class women can patch together social welfare and part-time work so they can just go home earlier).

It used to be recognized that the kind of parenting now considered “good” now was actually highly intense observational research and interaction requiring special training and not actually “parenting”. Parents were supposed to love their children, live clean lives and do useful work and show them some of it.

I know people who “have the village” and don’t make lots of money as married couples. They sure aren’t hanging 24/7/365 with their kids. Because the kids come along as part of their normal day of interaction with lots of other relatives and adults. That is increasingly rare, and money ends up being needed to patch the holes in the social ship. But it’s not great patch material, so you need a wheelbarrow’s worth.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Isn’t it odd that the most fertile years are when we are unable to shoulder the responsibility?

But it was not the case once. Long, long ago, a 17 or 18 year old man was a full adult, expected and willing to take on a man’s role in life. A woman of 16 was a woman in all things.

And, of course, at those ages, their health, energy and strength were at their lifetime peaks, or near it. So it’s no wonder their fertility levels are sky-high. By the time a woman was, say, 35, her children were helping her, not the other way around, if they were even still in the home. her “child rearing” was babysitting the grandchildren while their mother hoed the garden or canned vegetables or helped her husband make hay.

So it’s really not all that odd. What has happened is that what we do occupationally starts much later in life than it used to, and getting any kind of resource base was at least marginally easier. A 19 year old man can squeeze just as much or more out of a farm than a 35 year old man can. A 17 year old woman can get as much or more out of a garden than a 35 year old woman can.

Long ago, most people farmed. They earned subsistence and not a whole lot more. Nor did they expect much more. Nor was there much more to buy. By the time a man was 40, he had established his farm. He then relied more and more on his sons to do the heavy work. His parents probably lived with him and helped as much as they could with “rocking the baby to sleep” and hoeing the garden or harnessing the horses or feeding the chickens.

Possibly one or more of his children entered the priesthood or the convent. One or more would never marry and stay to help take care of the “old folks”. Some would die. Some would “go west” or join the army. Some would marry and likely live with the parents for some period of time until they could buy or build a house elsewhere. Family cash went to buying more land or building houses.

Even in my own lifetime, a young man graduated high school at age 17 or 18. He expected to marry right out of high school and take a job that he might have for life. He took an adult’s station in life immediately. Some joined the army or were drafted, then married and took what they thought would be a lifetime job. Some few went on to college; most of whom became engineers, teachers, lawyers, nurses, veterinarians, or doctors.

 

[Xantippe]

Just finished reading the linked Crisis magazine article, and can’t help but quote this part:

I really hate the sentiments in that article, which is basically–just give up, stop thinking, and hope that other people take care of your family.

Plus, it’s not even a fair representation of papal teaching on the subject, which balances prudence and generosity.

Some quotes from Humanae Vitae:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

“The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

I probably should not say this, but I will. I think history will record that the architect of late 20th century and early 21st century society was Hugh Hefner.

Hefner posited women as “playmates”, who wanted nothing more in life than a sophomoric young man wanted; sex and “stuff”, and the more expensive the “stuff”, the better. So “Playboy” was full of unrealistic women expressing unrealistic wishes and expectations, and lots of expensive “stuff” that made you a “real man” like 007, who had lots and lots of exotic “stuff”, including many women who were also part of his “stuff”.

Most women really didn’t relish the “playmate” role. They weren’t “stuff” like the sports car and the fine wine and the ultra stereo and the 40 foot boat, and didn’t want to be the 'stuff" men wanted them to be.

So, their “movement” was a rejection of men, touted by many and many a bitter woman who called men out for regarding them as “stuff” and rejected them in their turn, and regarded men as “stuff”; bad “stuff”, like botulism in your beluga caviar. Gloria Steinem even became a Playboy bunny so she could experience the “stuff” world from the inside. And because men were just a bunch of jerks wanting “stuff”, women wanted “stuff equality”. “Stuff equality” required not only education but wedded devotion to “career”, just a was the case with men. Not much time for children in all that, but one would be pretty well established on the career ladder by, say, age 35, and the “child as ‘stuff’” urge would yield one. That would require anything from daycare to a full-time nanny (preferably from France, but Hispanic or black would do) and “corporate exec stuff” that proved you were at least midway on the career ladder.

And men, not marrying, found that, lo, if they didn’t they could buy more “stuff”. As to women, well there was Frank Sinatra singing about the joys of “a very good year”, assuring them that “women as stuff” would differ at various stages in life, but would always be there, from farm girls in one’s youth to “rich women” later in life.

In doing so, women and men both became “stuff”, and that’s where we are at this moment in much of our society.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

There is a lot that retards family formation in addition to the divorce and family court environment that most men have at least heard of it thru someone close to them if not actually experienced for themselves.

Like lack of role models: few factors in poor life outcomes for both boys and girls are greater than the lack of fathers in homes.

Like health care: we’ve gone from 3-5% of GDP devoted to health care in the 1960’s to approaching 20% today, and very little of that increase has actually added any minutes to our care. Just more and more people involved and everyone has to get paid. For families, that often means that ridiculously high premiums can make it impractical to take any work or self employment outside of mid to large companies that can provide some benefits package and that goes double or more if there are any children with serious issues.

Like student loans: student loans outstanding now exceed consumer debt. This isn’t a bubble that can last. A boy can at least go into a trade, but most trades are simply either too demanding or at least too uncomfortable by women. For instance, I moved into a trade-related career and I can tell you there aren’t any women here. So women are stuck paying the price but the way many men think is they do not want to take on somebody’s sizable debt in marriage.

Like real estate: young people are increasingly priced out of metropolitan areas which they would have had trouble with anyway because health insurance and student loans.

And so on.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I probably should not say this, but I will. I think history will record that the architect of late 20th century and early 21st century society was Hugh Hefner.

Hefner posited women as “playmates”, who wanted nothing more in life than a sophomoric young man wanted; sex and “stuff”, and the more expensive the “stuff”, the better. So “Playboy” was full of unrealistic women expressing unrealistic wishes and expectations, and lots of expensive “stuff” that made you a “real man” like 007, who had lots and lots of exotic “stuff”, including many women who were also part of his “stuff”.

Most women really didn’t relish the “playmate” role. They weren’t “stuff” like the sports car and the fine wine and the ultra stereo and the 40 foot boat, and didn’t want to be the 'stuff" men wanted them to be.

So, their “movement” was a rejection of men, touted by many and many a bitter woman who called men out for regarding them as “stuff” and rejected them in their turn, and regarded men as “stuff”; bad “stuff”, like botulism in your beluga caviar. Gloria Steinem even became a Playboy bunny so she could experience the “stuff” world from the inside. And because men were just a bunch of jerks wanting “stuff”, women wanted “stuff equality”. “Stuff equality” required not only education but wedded devotion to “career”, just a was the case with men. Not much time for children in all that, but one would be pretty well established on the career ladder by, say, age 35, and the “child as ‘stuff’” urge would yield one. That would require anything from daycare to a full-time nanny (preferably from France, but Hispanic or black would do) and “corporate exec stuff” that proved you were at least midway on the career ladder.

And men, not marrying, found that, lo, if they didn’t they could buy more “stuff”. As to women, well there was Frank Sinatra singing about the joys of “a very good year”, assuring them that “women as stuff” would differ at various stages in life, but would always be there, from farm girls in one’s youth to “rich women” later in life.

In doing so, women and men both became “stuff”, and that’s where we are at this moment in much of our society.

Hefner is just a symptom, nothing more. Need to go back much further, but I’ll pull a couple of names for you to look up: Margaret Sanger and Antonio Gramsci. You’ll find a lot of forerunners of modern thought in their work.

 

[Xantippe]

There is a lot that retards family formation in addition to the divorce and family court environment that most men have at least heard of it thru someone close to them if not actually experienced for themselves.

Like lack of role models: few factors in poor life outcomes for both boys and girls are greater than the lack of fathers in homes.

**Like health care: we’ve gone from 3-5% of GDP devoted to health care in the 1960’s to approaching 20% today, and very little of that increase has actually added any minutes to our care. **Just more and more people involved and everyone has to get paid. For families, that often means that ridiculously high premiums can make it impractical to take any work or self employment outside of mid to large companies that can provide some benefits package and that goes double or more if there are any children with serious issues.

Like student loans: student loans outstanding now exceed consumer debt. This isn’t a bubble that can last. A boy can at least go into a trade, but most trades are simply either too demanding or at least too uncomfortable by women. For instance, I moved into a trade-related career and I can tell you there aren’t any women here. So women are stuck paying the price but the way many men think is they do not want to take on somebody’s sizable debt in marriage.

Like real estate: young people are increasingly priced out of metropolitan areas which they would have had trouble with anyway because health insurance and student loans.

And so on.

We are living longer, which is nice. We do stuff now like saving preemies born at 24 weeks, keep cancer patients alive longer, keep people with HIV from getting sick and dying (when I was a kid, almost everybody who got HIV died shockingly fast), do routine kidney transplants, vaccinate against illnesses that you used to just have to suffer through, help diabetics monitor and control their blood sugar in real time, and produce more and more impressive replacement limbs for amputees. So we are getting something for our money–it’s just more visible in people who are sicker. Healthy people may not be getting a lot out of the system for most of their lives.

And lots of people make middle class livings in health care, which is very nice for them.

Something to bear in mind is that in practice there is an overlap between student loans and consumer debt. (Which is, in my opinion, a reason for student loans not to get special treatment in terms of being unforgivable.) It’s not at all uncommon nowadays to hear about people living off of student loans if they fall on hard times. (Octomom was living off of her student loans.) In fact, sometimes people go to school in order to get student loans…

Also, and this is terrible, there are families that will live off of their adult kids’ student loan money. (One of my cousins apparently had her mom doing that.)

There’s also a lot of sexual harassment of women in the trades. There’s a female electrician online that who really pushes the trades for women, but the stuff she’s mentioned about having to deal with from male colleagues is not something I would want my daughters to have to live with. Also, there’s a lot of unemployment in the trades, a shorter working career, and a greater risk of disability. The thing about traditional women’s careers is that they do combine better with motherhood.

Also, with regard to men versus women and school loans–bear in mind that there are also a lot of rip-off trade schools. People do wind up with substantial loans for trade school.

nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14schools.html?pagewanted=all

Yes to the real estate problem. If the median US household income is $52k, the median US home costs $189k, and the rule of thumb is to have no more than 2X yearly income on one’s mortgage–we have a problem. The median couple would need to come up with an $85k downpayment to follow the 2X income rule.

 

[Xantippe]

There is a lot that retards family formation in addition to the divorce and family court environment that most men have at least heard of it thru someone close to them if not actually experienced for themselves.

Like lack of role models: few factors in poor life outcomes for both boys and girls are greater than the lack of fathers in homes.

Like health care: we’ve gone from 3-5% of GDP devoted to health care in the 1960’s to approaching 20% today, and very little of that increase has actually added any minutes to our care. Just more and more people involved and everyone has to get paid. For families, that often means that ridiculously high premiums can make it impractical to take any work or self employment outside of mid to large companies that can provide some benefits package and that goes double or more if there are any children with serious issues.

Like student loans: student loans outstanding now exceed consumer debt. This isn’t a bubble that can last. A boy can at least go into a trade, but most trades are simply either too demanding or at least too uncomfortable by women. For instance, I moved into a trade-related career and I can tell you there aren’t any women here. So women are stuck paying the price but the way many men think is they do not want to take on somebody’s sizable debt in marriage.

Like real estate: young people are increasingly priced out of metropolitan areas which they would have had trouble with anyway because health insurance and student loans.

And so on.

Another couple things:

One of the attractions of student loans to people who take them on is the relatively low interest rate and terms of repayment (like don’t have to start paying now) compared to say, credit cards. That’s not a great long term plan, but it does substantially blur the line between student loans and consumer debt. I’ve heard pretty crazy stories of what people did with their student loan money.

Another common story is that people from unsupportive/abusive family backgrounds go to college because that’s their only way out of the parental home, the only way they can get credit to escape and a safe place to stay. (In fact, you’ll bump into a number of people like that on CAF.)

Anecdotally, I think loan balances vary a lot based on the means, supportiveness and savvy of the borrower’s family. (If you read student loan horror stories, you’ll see a lot of examples of the parents dropping the ball and green-lighting things that they shouldn’t have.) One thing that isn’t clear in a lot of student loan writing is how many people get through with no student loan debt at all. I’m not finding the number right now, but something like 30% of graduates do so with **no **student loan debt. I believe the current median for student loan debt ($37k) is calculated based on those who have debt, with the non-debtors not included in the calculation, which is somewhat misleading.

If you listen to Dave Ramsey, people with student loans and degrees and jobs that actually justified the loans tend to be able to knock their loans out completely in 2-3 years. It’s not an impossible situation, as long as there is some sort of reasonable ratio between loans and income. Where people run into problems is when the ratio is out of whack. (Like, there’s a lady who used to write for Get Rich Slowly who acquired $100k in student loans just doing a doctoral program in creative writing.)

There’s also a very strong socioeconomic factor in who winds up with substantial student loans. Fingers crossed, but my husband and I hope to graduate our three children from 4-year college without any student loans at all if they go to Hometown U. I don’t think we’re going to be able to help with graduate or professional degrees as much, so there are some question marks, but we are determined to get them through undergraduate debt-free.

 

[Sarcelle]

There’s also the question–if older motherhood is so dire, why isn’t that a serious reason for Catholics to avoid pregnancy after 35 (or whatever)?

Good question.

A faithful Catholic couple without birth control would most like continue having kids right until menopause.

You don’t see the Church permitting older married couples to go on birth control because the consequence of having kids at that age is so dire.

 

[Xantippe]

Good question.

A faithful Catholic couple without birth control would most like continue having kids right until menopause.

You don’t see the Church permitting older married couples to go on birth control because the consequence of having kids at that age is so dire.

And I’ve even seen people on CAF put up quite the fight at the idea that older maternal age is a serious reason to use NFP.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s an interesting stat (although a little old, as it’s from 2010):

content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

“But now there’s evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.”

“In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).”

“Here’s the slightly deflating caveat: **this reverse gender gap, as it’s known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. **The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don’t live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.”

“The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do.”

So, it looks like there is some point to the risk of student loans.