Number of single young men in US jumps 50% — but survivalist warns “sorry, ladies, that’s not necessarily good news”

The number of unmarried young men in the United States has climbed sharply over the past quarter-century, and preparedness commentator Reginald Kaigler says the change reflects something much deeper than young adults simply taking longer to settle down.

Kaigler, host of the YouTube channel DEMCAD, pointed to figures from the Institute for Family Studies showing that about 30.4 million men ages 20 to 39 were unmarried in 2025, compared with roughly 20.7 million in 2000, an increase of nearly 50%.

Over the same period, the number of married men in that age range fell from about 18.1 million to 15.4 million, leaving unmarried men far more numerous than their married counterparts.

Kaigler argued that mainstream explanations often focus too heavily on dating apps, pornography, social media or men refusing to commit because they believe someone better is always available, while missing what he sees as a larger shift: many men are no longer putting much effort into dating or marriage at all.

“The big problem is young men, they’re not even trying,” he said. “They’ve given up.”

Kaigler Says Many Men Are Doing a Cost-Benefit Analysis

One explanation Kaigler rejected was the idea that large numbers of young men remain single because they are constantly cycling through women and refusing to choose one partner.

He said that description may fit a relatively small group of highly desirable men, but does not reflect the experience of most men.

Instead, Kaigler believes many are looking at what marriage could mean financially and emotionally and deciding that the potential costs outweigh the benefits.

“They’re doing a cost-benefit analysis,” he said.

Kaigler pointed specifically to divorce, child-custody disputes and the experiences of older men who went through difficult breakups as factors that younger men may be watching closely.

He also criticized no-fault divorce laws, arguing that some men see the legal and financial consequences of failed marriages and conclude that they would rather avoid the risk altogether.

Whether those concerns explain the demographic shift on their own is much harder to establish, because marriage rates are influenced by a wide mix of economic, cultural and personal factors.

Still, Kaigler’s broader observation is worth considering: young adults do not make decisions about marriage in a vacuum, and watching the relationships of parents, relatives and older friends can shape how attractive marriage looks to them.

Economics May Be Just as Important as Dating Culture

Kaigler also spent considerable time on money, arguing that falling marriage and birth rates cannot be separated from the growing cost of building a household.

“A lot of people can’t afford to start a family,” he said.

He noted that many women prefer partners who earn at least as much as they do, while many men are struggling to reach the level of financial stability that previous generations may have achieved earlier.

The broader statistics support the idea that marriage is happening later.

The median age at first marriage for American men is now around 31, compared with about 23.5 in 1975, while a much larger share of adults are reaching 40 without ever having married.

Kaigler framed rising housing costs as one obvious pressure.

“If you need $30,000 to put down on a damn house, how the hell are you going to start a family?” he asked.

That may be one of the strongest parts of his argument because it does not require assuming that men have collectively rejected women or that women have collectively rejected men.

If both groups are dealing with high housing costs, unstable employment, debt and delayed financial independence, then marriage and children naturally become harder to fit into the picture.

He Rejects the ‘Loneliness Epidemic’ Framing

Kaigler was much more skeptical when discussing the widespread concern about male loneliness.

He argued that large corporations and major media organizations are not genuinely worried about whether men feel isolated, but rather about the economic effects of fewer marriages and fewer children.

In his view, declining birth rates matter to governments and businesses because fewer children eventually mean fewer workers, taxpayers and consumers.

Kaigler went even further, suggesting that married men may work harder or pursue higher incomes because they are supporting spouses, children and larger households, meaning lower marriage rates could eventually reduce economic activity.

Those are Kaigler’s interpretations, and the transcript did not provide evidence establishing that corporations or government officials are primarily motivated by tax revenue when discussing loneliness or fertility.

Still, the underlying economic concern is real enough to explain why falling birth rates receive so much public-policy attention.

Countries with aging populations often have to think about labor shortages, tax bases and the future cost of supporting retirees, even though those questions exist alongside genuine concerns about mental health and social isolation.

Marriage Is Declining Alongside Social Connection

The rise in single men is happening during a broader decline in face-to-face social life.

The material Kaigler was discussing included figures showing that more than two-thirds of Americans report no socializing at all on a typical day, while nearly 10% of Gen Z say they have no face-to-face interaction with another person during their daily routine.

Only about 13% of Gen Z respondents agreed that most people can be trusted.

Those figures do not prove why young men are staying unmarried, but they do suggest that dating is taking place inside a culture where people are interacting less often in person and trusting one another less.

That matters because marriage generally begins with ordinary social contact.

If people spend less time meeting friends, coworkers, neighbors and potential partners in person, then there are simply fewer opportunities for relationships to form naturally.

Kaigler focused more heavily on gender conflict than on this broader social isolation, but the two may overlap.

A culture where men and women increasingly view one another with suspicion is unlikely to make dating easier.

Kaigler Blames Years of Cultural Messaging

One of Kaigler’s strongest claims was that men have spent years absorbing cultural messages telling them they are unnecessary.

He pointed to rhetoric celebrating women’s independence, criticism of traditional male roles and television portrayals of fathers as incompetent or foolish, arguing that repeated negative messaging eventually affects how men see relationships.

Kaigler believes some men have responded by disengaging.

After years of hearing that women do not need men, he argued, a portion of men are effectively answering by saying they no longer feel obligated to pursue marriage.

This is where his analysis becomes more ideological.

Changes in family structure cannot easily be traced to television sitcoms or feminist rhetoric alone, and women’s increased independence does not automatically imply hostility toward men.

At the same time, Kaigler is identifying a genuine cultural tension: traditional expectations around what men and women should provide in relationships have changed quickly, while dating expectations have not always changed at the same speed.

Men may still feel pressure to earn more and provide financially, even as women increasingly have their own careers and incomes.

That mismatch can create frustration on both sides.

From Gender Conflict to a ‘Divide and Conquer’ Theory

Toward the end of his commentary, Kaigler moved beyond dating and economics and argued that the conflict between men and women is being intentionally encouraged.

He said he believes powerful institutions benefit when ordinary people are divided against one another rather than focused on larger political or economic systems.

To make the point, he referenced the so-called “Willie Lynch” idea of controlling a population by turning groups against one another, comparing divisions between men and women with other social divisions.

Kaigler presented this as his own interpretation of modern culture rather than something demonstrated by the marriage statistics themselves.

There is a substantial difference between observing increased gender hostility and proving that such hostility is centrally coordinated, and the figures on marriage do not establish that kind of organized effort.

What they do establish is that American family formation has changed dramatically.

The Bigger Story Is That Fewer Men Are Forming Families

The most important part of the trend may ultimately be less dramatic than the online gender debate surrounding it.

There are now roughly 30 million unmarried American men between 20 and 39, while the age of first marriage continues moving upward and more adults are reaching middle age without ever marrying.

Kaigler sees many of those men as consciously opting out because marriage no longer appears financially or personally worthwhile.

Others would point to housing costs, weaker social networks, later adulthood, changing expectations between men and women and the rise of online life.

All of those factors can operate at the same time.

That makes the nearly 50% increase in single young men less a story about one gender failing the other than about how much adulthood itself has changed since 2000.

Marriage now arrives later, costs more to build around and takes place in a culture where people spend less time together in person.

Kaigler’s warning is that society should not assume millions of disengaged young men are simply enjoying their freedom.

Whether the cause is economics, distrust, changing gender roles or some combination of all three, the widening gap between single and married men suggests that a growing share of young Americans no longer see the traditional path toward marriage and family as either realistic or worth pursuing.