Here's a couple reasons this is a lame article

1) It partially involves demographic and political aspects that are not permitted to be discussed on this site; that leads to a lot of echo chamber "I donno" responses. You can't have insight when discussing something you can't discuss. Whats the point of hitting the echo chamber like a tuning fork other than to verify "yes it continues to ring with only one note"? Yup that tuning fork / echo chamber is still not a hi-fi speaker in terms of expressing full bandwidth reality.. so is it more likely the article is inappropriate or that moderation standards will change? It seems more likely this is a bad article.

2) The ratios make very little sense. Mush together the "family" graph, the "children" graph and the "partner" graph for a couple ages for a specific example. Much as "coworkers" doesn't mean everyone works part time, it really means a minority of us work more than full time while the majority don't work and have no coworkers by definition. So comparing the ratios in the "children" graph with more than half unemployed with a side dish of typical breeding years it implies something like half of stay at home parent age bracket has pre-school kid at home, which would not appear to be nearly enough to maintain population. If almost no one had kids this would make sense. There's no point discussing an article that has highly questionable aspects to it.

3) There will be the usual ultra-low quality comments bashing introverts for being born that way. Time alone is only horrifying if you're horrified with yourself or who you are. Otherwise, its a lot of fun. Extroverts being a malfunctioning minority, implies its not really a problem that introverts are doing just fine as they age. Intro/Extro debate is mildly interesting yet mostly irrelevant to the article.

4) As a side dish its mostly a collection of cultural mis-beliefs that are somewhat impermissible, even with this evidence. Well, everyone knows every 20-something spends every night fashionably socializing all night long. Uh, no, almost no 20-something does that outside the echo chamber and most importantly the "everyone knows" aspect, and even the tiny minority of extreme party people are in a somewhat exponential decline to zero by age 30. For an example of an impermissible thought, how do you sell "new urbanism" to everyone, when statistically no one goes out at night? The amount of time people spend with their partner is shockingly stable for decades although everyone knows all marriages decline, except that it seems on very few actually do decline. Everyone knows that grandparents are taking care of more (grand)kids than ever before, yet the absolute number in the graph is scarcely larger than teen moms. Everyone knows the time alone graph goes up with age because friends are dying off or moving away and supposedly people forget how to make friends or similar nonsense and that's the only socially acceptable explanation, except for the friends graph shows a predictable child-bearing age decline and then actually slightly increases with age, such that people are both alone much more as they age while also spending slightly more time with friends. The problem is none of these issues are demographically or politically verboten like point #1 but are socially unacceptable to think about or express in public. So again the article cannot be discussed, making it a bad article.