It’s been trending this way for years, but seeing it graphed out like this is shocking.

What do you think are the effects of this drastic change?

  • Glyph@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The last part doesn’t mean that. It’s 53% of the whole population under 30. Could be a higher percentage of the ones having a partner/married. Since the total is smaller if you just take the ones having a partner. Removing the ones still single/didn’t meet anyone.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Right, I get that it doesn’t strictly rule it out directly, but it’s a surprising discrepancy. That 53% is just for under 30s too:

      compared with 37% of those ages 30 to 49, 20% of those 50 to 64 and 13% of those 65 and older.

      while the purported figure for people having met their partner through an app is for all demographics. The number of people who are partnered vs single is 70%. If 60% of those met via dating apps, that’s 42% of the total. Which seems probably still more than the number of people who have ever tried them, and that would only check out with the absurdly generous assumption that those apps have a near perfect success rate and almost no one who uses them goes back to other methods.

      • exasperation@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The number of people who are partnered vs single is 70%. If 60% of those met via dating apps, that’s 42% of the total.

        You’re still not slicing thin enough.

        If 60% of the couples who got together in 2022 met on dating apps, and people who got together in 2022 constitute 5% of all couples, that’s still possible (and probable), then those couples will still only be 3% of the total. Pretty easy to add up to 11% that way when you start including all the 10-year-old relationships, the 20-year-old relationships, etc.

        If it were flat at 60% for all years then no, it wouldn’t add up.

        But if you look at the area under the curve, it’s still pretty small comparatively speaking because it’s such a recent phenomenon. (And not every year would actually count equally for the whole data set, but it’s displayed in this chart as every year adding up to 100% for its own year.)