Share aged 65 and over and Share now married
Where Share aged 65 and over is higher, Share now married tends to be higher. The link is weak: +0.37 across 3,198 counties, on a scale from −1 (opposite) to +1 (in step). That figure compares places with the same population density, income and education, so those differences can't explain it. It holds inside states too. Measured separately within each of 41 states, the middle value of the link is +0.31.
Holds after adjusting
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Share aged 65 and over
The percentage of all residents, children included, who are 65 or older. It is a share of everyone, not just of adults. The typical county is 19.7%, and four in five are between 14% and 26%. The extremes come from one big group living there, not from places that aged differently: Sumter County, Florida reaches 57.8% since The Villages retirement community is there. Chattahoochee County, Georgia is 3.3% since it is mostly Fort Benning, an army base, and Madison County, Idaho is 5.3% since it is a university town.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B01001_020…B01001_049 (12 cells), divided by total population
Share now married
The percentage of people aged 15 and over who are married now, including those whose spouse lives elsewhere. The middle county is 52.4%. Never married, married, widowed and divorced cover everyone 15 and over and add up to exactly 100%.
Census ACS 5-year · ACS table B12001_004…B12001_013 (2 cells), divided by population aged 15 and over
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By share aged 65 and over
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Sumter County, FL | 57.8% | 63.4% |
| Catron County, NM | 44.5% | 46% |
| La Paz County, AZ | 42.2% | 55.6% |
| Charlotte County, FL | 40.4% | 58.4% |
| Lancaster County, VA | 40% | 57.9% |
| Lowest | ||
| Chattahoochee County, GA | 3.32% | 35.7% |
| Madison County, ID | 5.32% | 42.9% |
| Aleutians West Census Area, AK | 6.37% | 51.9% |
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 6.42% | 35.1% |
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | 7.07% | 18.4% |
By share now married
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Borden County, TX | 13.6% | 82.6% |
| Glasscock County, TX | 15.4% | 80.5% |
| Thomas County, NE | 33.1% | 77.5% |
| Banner County, NE | 28.8% | 75.4% |
| Blaine County, NE | 34% | 75.2% |
| Lowest | ||
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | 7.07% | 18.4% |
| Vieques Municipio, PR | 24.4% | 22.9% |
| Radford city, VA | 9.38% | 25.9% |
| Sioux County, ND | 9.21% | 26.1% |
| ComerÃo Municipio, PR | 20.7% | 26.8% |
States
By share aged 65 and over
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Puerto Rico | 22.7% | 36.4% |
| Maine | 21.9% | 51.5% |
| Florida | 21.1% | 49.3% |
| Vermont | 20.8% | 49.1% |
| West Virginia | 20.7% | 49.7% |
| Lowest | ||
| Utah | 11.6% | 56.3% |
| District of Columbia | 12.7% | 32.9% |
| Texas | 13.2% | 51.4% |
| Alaska | 13.3% | 50.9% |
| Georgia | 14.6% | 48.3% |
By share now married
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Utah | 11.6% | 56.3% |
| Idaho | 16.6% | 55.1% |
| Wyoming | 18% | 54.5% |
| Nebraska | 16.4% | 52.8% |
| Kansas | 16.6% | 52.5% |
| Lowest | ||
| District of Columbia | 12.7% | 32.9% |
| Puerto Rico | 22.7% | 36.4% |
| New Mexico | 18.8% | 44.4% |
| Louisiana | 16.3% | 45.7% |
| Rhode Island | 18.3% | 46% |
Metro areas
By share aged 65 and over
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Wildwood-The Villages, FL | 57.8% | 63.4% |
| Punta Gorda, FL | 40.4% | 58.4% |
| Port Townsend, WA | 39.6% | 57.7% |
| Homosassa Springs, FL | 36.3% | 54.7% |
| Sebring, FL | 35.9% | 55.2% |
| Lowest | ||
| Rexburg, ID | 7.86% | 46.6% |
| Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT | 7.87% | 58.5% |
| Fort Leonard Wood, MO | 9.6% | 46.5% |
| Andrews, TX | 9.67% | 62.3% |
| Hinesville, GA | 9.68% | 51.9% |
By share now married
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Wildwood-The Villages, FL | 57.8% | 63.4% |
| Granbury, TX | 25.4% | 62.9% |
| Andrews, TX | 9.67% | 62.3% |
| Crossville, TN | 31.8% | 62.3% |
| Port Lavaca, TX | 18.6% | 62% |
| Lowest | ||
| Gallup, NM | 13.2% | 31.9% |
| Clarksdale, MS | 16.1% | 32.8% |
| Vermillion, SD | 12.2% | 34.3% |
| Guayama, PR | 21.8% | 35.2% |
| Ponce, PR | 23% | 35.5% |
Cities and towns
By share aged 65 and over
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Desert Palms CDP, CA | 86.4% | 65.5% |
| Sun City West CDP, AZ | 85.8% | 68.2% |
| The Villages CDP, FL | 85.2% | 73.5% |
| On Top of the World CDP, FL | 83.7% | 72.1% |
| Laguna Woods city, CA | 83% | 47.5% |
| Lowest | ||
| University of California-Davis CDP, CA | 0% | 5.71% |
| Fort Irwin CDP, CA | 0% | 61.1% |
| Camp Pendleton South CDP, CA | 0% | 87.6% |
| North Fort Lewis CDP, WA | 0% | 49.9% |
| Fort Lewis CDP, WA | 0% | 55.9% |
By share now married
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| St. James town, NC | 60.9% | 87.7% |
| Camp Pendleton South CDP, CA | 0% | 87.6% |
| The Village of Indian Hill city, OH | 27.4% | 80.4% |
| Tellico Village CDP, TN | 66.4% | 79.9% |
| Saddlebrooke CDP, AZ | 70.2% | 79.3% |
| Lowest | ||
| Stony Brook University CDP, NY | 3.28% | 2.07% |
| Rutgers University-Busch Campus CDP, NJ | 0% | 3.78% |
| Isla Vista CDP, CA | 2.36% | 4.48% |
| University of California-Davis CDP, CA | 0% | 5.71% |
| Storrs CDP, CT | 5.33% | 7.47% |
ZIP codes
By share aged 65 and over
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 32162 (The Villages CDP, FL) | 88.1% | 73.5% |
| ZIP 85375 (Sun City West CDP, AZ) | 85.2% | 68% |
| ZIP 92637 (Laguna Woods city, CA) | 83% | 47.5% |
| ZIP 85622 (Pima County, AZ) | 82.8% | 69.4% |
| ZIP 85351 (Sun City CDP, AZ) | 76.2% | 53.1% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 98433 (Pierce County, WA) | 0% | 51.4% |
| ZIP 92310 (San Bernardino County, CA) | 0% | 61.1% |
| ZIP 92136 (San Diego city, CA) | 0% | 33.4% |
| ZIP 92055 (San Diego County, CA) | 0% | 3.43% |
| ZIP 85613 (Sierra Vista city, AZ) | 0% | 46.6% |
By share now married
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| ZIP 78619 (Hays County, TX) | 23.4% | 82.9% |
| ZIP 84310 (Weber County, UT) | 18.4% | 78.2% |
| ZIP 34228 (Longboat Key town, FL) | 67% | 77.9% |
| ZIP 32163 (Wildwood city, FL) | 72% | 77.6% |
| ZIP 38558 (Fairfield Glade CDP, TN) | 67.8% | 77.1% |
| Lowest | ||
| ZIP 38677 (University CDP, MS) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 32612 (Gainesville city, FL) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 19717 (Newark city, DE) | 0% | 0% |
| ZIP 92055 (San Diego County, CA) | 0% | 3.43% |
| ZIP 80913 (Fort Carson CDP, CO) | 0% | 5.12% |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 3,218 counties: the five with far more share now married than their share aged 65 and over would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Share aged 65 and over | Share now married | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Borden County, TX | 13.6% | 82.6% |
| Glasscock County, TX | 15.4% | 80.5% |
| McPherson County, NE | 21.6% | 74.7% |
| Thomas County, NE | 33.1% | 77.5% |
| Banner County, NE | 28.8% | 75.4% |
| Below the line | ||
| Vieques Municipio, PR | 24.4% | 22.9% |
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | 7.07% | 18.4% |
| ComerÃo Municipio, PR | 20.7% | 26.8% |
| Culberson County, TX | 26.7% | 29.2% |
| San Juan Municipio, PR | 24.8% | 30.4% |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | +0.260 | 3,198 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.373 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.354 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.424 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | +0.216 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 292 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.312 | the link worked out inside each of 41 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.334 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 5.9e-106. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 6.3e-10. The site tested 20,910 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 4.9e-105.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.33 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where share aged 65 and over rose most, did share now marriedmove too? Each county’s change is compared with the average change in its own state. That takes out ups and downs that hit a whole region at once. Each change is the gap between two estimates that both contain some error. That error pulls these links towards zero, so a weak one is weak partly for that reason. The q column shows whether a link could be a fluke, allowing for the many pairs tested: 0.05 or less means it is unlikely to be chance.
| Period | Counties | Change together | Within states | q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic | 3,218 | +0.06 | +0.06 | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 3,218 | +0.05 | +0.04 | — |
Both come from the American Community Survey, which asks a sample of households. Random error in a county's sample pushes both changes at once. So part of any agreement here is that shared error. It is shown, but not counted as a finding. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Median age and Share aged 65 and over — +0.93
- Share now married and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2020 — +0.58
- Share now married and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2016 — +0.57
- Share aged 65 and over and Share never married — -0.56
- Share now married and Republican share of the two-party vote, 2024 — +0.56
- Share now married and Children in single-parent households — -0.55
- Share aged 65 and over and Share widowed — +0.55
- Median household income and Share now married — +0.54
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Share aged 65 and over and Share now married