AUSTRALIA BY NUMBERS: Today, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has released the first batch of its 2011 census data. We’ve asked some of the country’s top demographers and statisticians to crunch the numbers on Australia’s population: how we live, where we work, who our families are and how we spend our time.
Today, a team from ANU’s Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute examines why more and more Australians are living alone.
Census data released today show there were 9,117,033 households in Australia on Census night. The average number of people living in a household was unchanged from the last Census in 2006, at 2.6 persons per household.
Over the past century, Australia has seen a dramatic decline in the number of people living together.
In 1911, the average number of people living in private dwellings was 4.5, dropping to 3.5 by 1966, and 2.7 in 1991. In the 20 years since 1991, there has been little change in household size, halting the previous downward trend.
The decline in average number of people living together, which was evident over the early- to mid-19th Century, has been attributed to change in two main factors: family size and population ageing.
Family size has decreased. The reasons for smaller family sizes include couples having fewer children and having them later in life, as well as relationship breakdown.
Also contributing to smaller household size is the effect of population ageing. As a population ages, more elderly people, particularly women, may live alone after the death of a partner.
Most Australians live in a household with their family. In 2011, around 16.8 million Australians lived in a family household. This represents 7 out of 10 households. Of these family households, most have children present.
Around 37% had no children. 45% of family households were couple families with children, and 16% were a one-parent family.
While most people lived in a family or lone-person household, a small proportion lived in group households. About 4% of households were group households, a figure which has hardly changed in the last 25 years.
There has been a substantial increase in lone-person households in the last 50 years. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that in 1961 around 11% of Australian households had just one resident. In 2011, lone-person households had increased to 24% of households.
This means that 1.9 million or 1 in 10 Australians lived alone.
So who lives alone? Living alone is more common for older people, and particularly for women. Of women aged 65 years and older, and not living in a care facility, more than one in three live by themselves. This compares to one in five men aged 65 years and over.
Women are more likely to live alone at older ages than men because women typically have a longer life expectancy than men and tend to marry men slightly older than they are, and so are more likely to experience the loss of a partner.
While 24% of households having one resident seems a lot, it is not particularly large by international standards. De Vaus and Richardson found that the percentage of lone-person households was largest in Scandinavian countries. For example, around 46% of households in Sweden have one person living in them. A high rate of lone-person households is also apparent in Western European countries at around 30%.
Living alone is often thought of as a potentially isolating or undesirable living arrangement.
But living alone is not being alone. Reimondos and colleagues recently found that around 25% of single people in Australia were in an intimate and ongoing relationship.
And there is no evidence that countries with large numbers of people living alone have lower levels of life satisfaction. The OECD Better Life Index shows that people in countries with high levels of living alone actually score well on happiness ratings.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
I think the OECD Better Life Index gives mixed results.
For example, Iceland at the top of the index, “6% reported ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ spending time with friends, colleagues or others in social settings”. For Korea at the other end of the Index, “8% of people in Korea reported ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ spending time with friends”
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111
The % of adults living isolated from others is almost the same in both countries, and the difference in life happiness…
Read moreLisa Milne
logged in via Facebook
I don't know what you've been reading Dale, but I challenge you to find and cite via weblink here a single instance of any feminist espousing that as an ideal. I won't otherwise engage with you since that's pointless.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Lisa Milne,
Oh, I suppose you want to know some of the history and ideals of feminism.
I will list some of that below, but with all the talk of sustainable societies, I can't see how increasing the number of single parent households does create a more sustainable society, environmentally, socially or economically.
Below are just a few of the heros and heroines of feminism.
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We…
Read moreSuzy Gneist
logged in via Facebook
I have also never come across such a thing as a 'feminist ideal' that involves no fathers - references please. In my experience it was not my choice to bring my children up alone - and I was certainly never offered more help with this task. If I am considered a feminist for standing up for women's equal rights, so be it, yet this does not affect my belief that the father has responsibilities and duties too. Maybe you are generalising from a personal experience and world view, I can only speculate.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
For some more reading, there is this report from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. It seems to give basically opposite findings to this rather feminist article appearing in The Conversation
"Data from the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes suggests that loneliness is a significant issue in Australia, with 35 per cent of men and 29 per cent of women reporting that loneliness was a serious problem for them. On average, these people report being twice as unhealthy as those who…
Read moreLisa Milne
logged in via Facebook
Ok Dale, I was thinking that you were referring to modern feminism ie anything written by anyone working post the 1980's not the radical feminists of the 1970's - 80s whom nobody cites anymore. So, have a go at liberal feminism, standpoint feminism, psychoanalytic feminism, post structuralist feminisms, postmodern feminisms, girl power feminisms etc etc.
The radical feminists were polemicists because they were working a context where rape within marriage was legal, women couldn't earn decent…
Read moreLisa Milne
logged in via Facebook
And where is the link between this article and feminists having a goal of booting men out of families?
If the long bow you are attempting to tortuously draw is about the reference to divorced or separated men, the research carried our on Australian divorce trends by the Australian Institute of families and around the world boil down to that the majority of divorces in Western countries are most typically instigated by female partners for reasons of a lack of emotional connection with their partners - as opposed the fabulous successes of the Global Feminist Conspiracy.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Lisa Milne
Most of the ideals of the early feminists have now become a reality.
These ideals included: -
Large scale destruction of the nuclear family.
Large scale removal of fathers from their children.
Children to be raised by the mother and the state (or taxpayer).
The effects of this include (but not limited to): -
Increasing numbers of single person households, together with the economic, social and environmental problems this creates.
Increasing rates of loneliness and associated health problems.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Lisa Milne,
I haven’t made any personalised comments regards yourself, and I regard your personalised comments as abusive.
I have found extraordinary levels of abuse from people who identify themselves are believers in feminism.
I would now think that making abusive remarks about other people must be a part of the training of feminism.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
I find it intriguing that the definition of "family" used here seems to include couples without children. By definition, I would have thought a "family" household would include dependent children.
As a member of a couple household, I've always hated and felt marginalised by the term "working families". As if the contributions that I and my partner make to society are somehow invisible and don't matter. And I KNOW people like me are not sort of the people that so-called "Family" lobbyists have in mind . . .
Anna Reimondos
Research Assistant at Australian National University
Hi Regan,
The definition of 'family' we used here is simply the one used by the ABS.
According to the Census Dictionary http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2901.0Chapter32102011: "A family is defined by the ABS as two or more persons, one of whom is at least 15 years of age, who are related by blood, marriage (registered or de facto), adoption, step or fostering, and who are usually resident in the same household."
Of course as you say this ABS definition might not always match what people think of as constituting a 'family'! I also would tend to agree that a couple with no dependent children is not really a 'family' in the traditional sense. However in terms of classifying households I supposed it is convenient to group couples with no children with the 'other' families, just to distinguish them clearly from the other two types of households: lone-person households and group-households.
Anna Reimondos
Research Assistant at Australian National University
Evans and Gray also found some very interesting results on this exact topic, when they analysed what Australians think constitutes a 'family' using results from the 2003 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes http://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/isbn/0868406716.htm
According to that survey, the percentage who believed a couple could be considered a family varied not only by whether or not the couple had children, but also whether they were married or not. The following percentages represent the percentage of respondents who said a couple could be considered a family :
Married couple:
With children: 99%
Without children: 63%
Unmarried couple
With children: 79%
Same sex-couple
With children: 42%
Without children: 20%
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
Thanks for the clarification Anna.
I can see the logic of the ABS definition and notice that it also appears to be inclusive in the sense that same-sex couples can also meet the criteria you have described.
The fact that the majority of households do *not* contain dependent children still leaves open the question as to why the "family unit" is so fetishised by politicians and other groups. (A bit of a rhetorical question really)
Margo Saunders
Public Health Policy Researcher
Just a point about single-person households: observational evidence seems to suggest that in Australia, as in a number of other developed countries (esp. the USA), there are significant numbers of single females who choose to live on their own -- because they like it and because the other options don't seem terribly attractive. These include women who have been in relationships that didn't work out, and those who place a high value on their careers and their independence, neither of which they wish to subjugate to the demands of a serious relationship involving co-habitation. These women have full and active lives and would not be classed as 'lonely'.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Margo,
Data please, and not some feminist propaganda. It is too irksome.
Margo Saunders
Public Health Policy Researcher
There was no feminist ideology intended -- just an observation, pure and simple, that living along out of choice seems to appeal to more and more women. I guess it is 'feminist' in the sense that these women don't feel that being part of a live-in relationship is of paramount importance, or, for some, the 'right' relationship just hasn't come along and they're not willing to settle for anyone (hey, it used to happen a lot, and still does).
Read moreTo the extent that feminism resulted in greater financial…
Margo Saunders
Public Health Policy Researcher
And there has been some discussion in Australia, as well. For example, see these articles in The Age and the SMH (while we've still got them): <http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life/why-women-are-enjoying-being-home-alone-20110825-1jcge.html>; and <http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/one-the-happiest-number-20120220-1titt.html>;
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Margo Saunders
I think there is a lot of misinformation regards women’s so-called economic independence. No such thing, if you want a house and children.
The average mortgage repayments in Australia is now about $1,800 per month, as well as the cost of day care, and the general costs of operating a car, and paying for food and health expenses, and just staying alive.
So living alone might be OK for some women, but very few will ever own a house and be able to afford children, or be able to retire early, and I think very few will be able to afford much at all if the debt crises hits Australia.
They will also be much more likely to succumb to loneliness and all the effects of that.
Feminist propaganda rarely covers such issues.
Regan Forrest
logged in via Twitter
You raise an interesting point Margo.
If we're going to blame societal ills on "isms" (a dangerous game I know), I'd suggest "consumerism" is a far better candidate than feminism.
It has fostered the "because I'm worth it" mindset that your examples so vividly describe. If everything in life is viewed through the lens of consumer choice, and we see ourselves as customers not citizens, then me-centred materialism is the result: "What do you mean I can't have happy relationships straight off the shelf?! Compromise? Nah, I'll just trade this one in..."
Consumerism has also been behind the rise in cost of living (and expectations of what level of material comfort is essential) that has made the dual-income household a necessity for many.