[HN Gopher] Children of married parents do better, but America i...
___________________________________________________________________
Children of married parents do better, but America is moving the
other way
Author : rntn
Score : 174 points
Date : 2023-10-22 13:16 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| Retric wrote:
| Is it that marriage itself is beneficial or that people capable
| of maintaining a relationship make better parents?
|
| Divorce is significantly more common for bipolar, paranoid, and
| schizophrenic people for example. So I think we need to look at
| widows or something to control for those kinds of issues.
| COGlory wrote:
| I was wondering about that, too. The data are very clear: if
| you grow up with married parents, you will do better. But,
| should everyone be rushing off to get married, or is marriage
| selective for people who will do better? Or is it partly
| selective, and also partly forcing yourself to work through a
| marriage makes you a better person?
| hfuyf65 wrote:
| Its effects may be more visible, because in previous
| iterations society condemned children out of wedlock so data
| on it was not as reliable. Naturally, potential solutions
| would result in rather unwelcome dystopias that could be
| encapsulates in a phrase 'oi you got loicense for those
| kids?'
| rawgabbit wrote:
| It is a bit of all the above. People select marriage partners
| who are trust worthy, stable, and not constantly looking for
| excitement.
|
| These same people, when they find a suitable spouse, are more
| likely to tough it out when things get unpleasant in the
| belief their spouse is fundamentally a good person.
|
| In marriage just like at work, you don't judge someone by one
| event. People may have a bad day. Or they are sick and not
| themselves. Instead you should judge their actions over a
| long period of time. If someone has always been there for
| you, appreciated you and delivered what they promised, and
| for some reason hurt you today; you are more likely to give
| them the benefit of the doubt.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| Possibly some of the poor outcomes are due to married people
| being more likely to be able to sustain a stable relationship.
| There are a lot of factors confounded with marriage, and it
| doesn't seem like the author controlled for them (this is an
| article about a book and not a peer reviewed study). She
| explicitly mentioned that married couples are more likely to
| have a better household income and that single moms are less
| likely to have support from outside family members. So I
| suspect that outcomes might be better for a single parent with
| the income and family support the same as a married couple, but
| that situation is rare. Similarly, if you forced two people to
| get married and have kids when they didn't want to, those kids
| probably aren't going to get the same benefit of growing up in
| a married household.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I wonder how much more we can add to this with
|
| Divorce being more common now, but adding
|
| Family sizes decreasing over time.
|
| Families moving farther away and not able to support each
| other as readily.
|
| Fewer friends with kids reducing the number of potential
| helpers with ones kids in time crunched/emergency situations.
| rafaelmn wrote:
| It's literally in the first paragraph :
|
| >In the book, released last month, Kearney points out a rather
| obvious fact: Children raised by two parents have a much higher
| chance of success than those raised by one. Yet she goes even
| further to argue that whether parents are married or not
| impacts their children's success.
| chomp wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > In the U.S., she says, unmarried adults who decide to live
| together do it for a much shorter duration than in Europe.
| Children in many of these households are more likely to
| experience two or three parental partnerships by age 15.
|
| Its a stability thing.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > In the U.S., she says, unmarried adults who decide to live
| together do it for a much shorter duration than in Europe.
|
| Are there any theories about why this might be? The article
| doesn't seem to follow this up.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Yeah, I'm also curious. Another commenter in this thread
| blames individualism and inability to cope with minor
| incompatibilities but I wonder if it's really true.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| I suspect this is a result of the tax system in the US
| which is structured in a way that strongly incentivises
| parents into marriage.
|
| Europe generally taxes incomes individually and offers
| parental leave to help when one of the parents is out of
| the workforce with a baby. In the US there's just the
| pooling of tax allowances.
|
| For dual income households in very high cost of living
| areas though you need to balance the benefits of pooling
| tax allowances while only one of you is working with the
| reduction in mortgage interest tax deduction (which has the
| same maximum for both a married couple or unmarried single
| filers.)
| Racing0461 wrote:
| > I suspect this is a result of the tax system in the US
| which is structured in a way that strongly incentivises
| parents into marriage.
|
| the gain from married to Married filing separately is
| insignificant.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| The gain is from married filing jointly while one partner
| is not working. At $100k it roughly halves the income tax
| you pay.
| jkhdigital wrote:
| Funny you mention that. I have four siblings, raised together
| in a (mostly) traditional family, and all five of us have
| children now. The only one who is not married is my
| schizophrenic sister.
|
| However, my late aunt was schizophrenic and stayed married for
| her entire adult life, so who knows.
| konschubert wrote:
| On a slightly related note, why is it that one gets lynched on
| twitter nowadays any time one brings up that "correlation
| doesn't imply causation"?
| mikrl wrote:
| Are you sure there is a causative relation between bringing
| it up and getting eviscerated?
|
| Perhaps a third process correlates them.
| pram wrote:
| Because it has become a lazy thought terminating cliche since
| people say it and then contribute nothing else of value.
| konschubert wrote:
| But what if the thoughts were dumb?
| gemstones wrote:
| Because it's on you to show what about the correlation makes
| causation unlikely, and most people don't take that step. We
| all know correlation isn't causation, that's trite and
| obvious. Why wouldn't the correlation between married parents
| and better child outcomes be causative?
| mdorazio wrote:
| Some bad answers (and non-answers) to your question here. There
| are many studies on this with various conclusions worth
| reading, example set [1]. At a high level, US marriages (and
| potentially non-US long-term partnerships) bring stability,
| additional economic support, an additional role model
| (completely missing for boys growing up in a single mother
| household), additional attention & emotional support at home,
| and the ability to split parenting tasks as the need arises
| (ex. dad goes to a school event because mom needs to work late,
| or vice versa).
|
| Also important to note is that parental attention has a large
| impact on _academic_ outcomes of kids [2], so in single parent
| households where the parent doesn 't have the time to provide
| sufficient attention, the kids suffer at school compared to
| their two-parent peers.
|
| [1]
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=two...
|
| [2]
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131911.2013.78...
| xattt wrote:
| Why not both?
|
| All people, kids and adults, have a finite level of emotional
| and mental energy that they have to "dispense" in everyday
| life. If you are a couple that's dealing with marital strife,
| this is emotional overhead that gets diverted to dealing with
| that instead of your kids.
|
| Same goes for kids. A child that's struggling to comprehend why
| parents decided to leave each other will be using that
| emotional energy to process it instead of focusing on personal
| growth.
|
| This is not taking into account the divorce process is costly,
| with money diverted to lawyers, instead of being pooled and
| applied to improve family life.
|
| Also, persons who divorce early in a relationship may not have
| taken the time to understand compatibility with each other, may
| be emotionally immature and impulsive. The lack of insight
| might be something that perpetuates into other aspects of their
| life.
|
| There are, obviously, relationship patterns where it takes a
| long time for one partner to realize the other one has
| gradually become more and more abusive and controlling, either
| because they have low self-confidence or self-esteem. This
| somewhat tracks the concept of emotional maturity, but this is
| difficult to talk about as this form of framing puts the blame
| onto the abused partner.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >This is not taking into account the divorce process is
| costly,
|
| When parties choose not to fight, it's not near as costly.
| This said there is a new set of costs incurred in creating
| and managing two households in most cases.
| danielschonfeld wrote:
| This question is answered in the interview. She is saying that
| a household with a stable long lasting relationship is what's
| driving these better outcomes. She's also saying that in
| _America_ marriage (unfortunately) seems to be the only way to
| keep people together for a long while (long enough for a child
| to not experience a parade of parents by the time they are 15
| according to the article).
|
| In my personal opinion. I think what she's stumbled on is yet
| again proof of Americans hyper individuality rearing its ugly
| face. The Europeans can stay together longer without the
| marriage piece of paper because
|
| 1) Selfishness derived from hyper individuality doesn't drive
| people to nope out of relationships at the first sign of
| minuscule problems or one side not getting their way
|
| 2) Since over there not everything is an economical benefit
| proposal people value the relationship with different metrics
| than our countrymen and women do.
| Retric wrote:
| Again, both parents in a stable long lasting relationship are
| capable of a stable long lasting relationship. Americans
| being bad at this doesn't mean long term relationships are
| the sole difference, though they likely do provide some
| benefits it's not the total difference in populations.
|
| _" I don't know exactly what it is about marriage, but it is
| a very practical matter," says Kearney, chafing at all the
| criticism. "If you just look in the data, marriage is what
| delivers kids a stable, long-term, two-parent household in
| this country."_
|
| The data is clear, however understanding the root causes is
| important because it impacts what approaches are most useful.
| If the relationships themselves are important the having a
| high school class in maintaining healthy relationship could
| be useful. If it's the broader issues then we need to address
| those issues.
| beej71 wrote:
| I'd like to see a control on this. Is there a group of
| people who thought they were married, but by bureaucratic
| snafu actually weren't? Did they have different outcomes
| than people who were really married?
| Balgair wrote:
| Widows/ers would also be a good control.
| soeptical wrote:
| Widows/ers may have some associated confounding factors
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I'm sorry to be off-topic but _widows /ers_ just hurts my
| eyes. Why not use a more elegant alternative, widow(er)s?
| Even the uglier widow(s|ers) would be better.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| Or the gender neutral, invariant noun: "widowen"
|
| BTW, shouldn't "widower" be the person who died and the
| survivor be called "widowee"?
| Retric wrote:
| That may seem reasonable but widower is a man whose
| spouse died. https://www.merriam-
| webster.com/dictionary/widower
|
| "Etymology Middle English _widewer_ , alteration of
| _wedow_ widow, widower, from Old English _wuduwa_
| widower; akin to Old English _wuduwe_ widow"
| RulerOf wrote:
| I'm sure there's a style guide out there that would
| suggest using "The widowed."
| ACow_Adonis wrote:
| we have a concept in welfare and income stats called
| equivalisation.
|
| this is where we try to control for the positive material
| externalities that come from sharing resources among
| people. you dont have to buy two of everything if you
| share, it's cheaper to add a room than obtain a whole
| house and duplicate bathrooms + kitchens etc.
|
| widows would fall afoul of this (in the sense that
| they've lived with that advantage for most of their
| lives), as well as obtain a likely wealth effect from
| inheritance, but it wouldn't surprise me if the entirity
| or majority of the marriage effect is largely just a
| restatement of equivalisation + social transfers/safety
| nets.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| If there are effects of marriage, it seems fairly obvious
| that they are due to the explicit commitment that the two
| people have made to each other, not the government's
| tickbox.
|
| Are you actually confused by this concept?
| dijit wrote:
| Let's tone down the aggressive comments please.
|
| One large barrier to breakup is how much damage a breakup
| will do and how much effort it entails.
|
| If a break up is very easy then small insults will lead
| to break up.
|
| A marriage contract is.. a legal contract; thereby it can
| be a barrier to a break up.
|
| I have considered breaking up with my girlfriend before
| yet the effort of splitting our things and ensuring that
| she has a nice continuation of a place to live
| comfortably has caused me to reevaluate if the reasons I
| want to break up are good enough. That's all the parent
| was suggesting. Does the marriage _contract_ have any
| bearing on keeping people together.
| withinboredom wrote:
| In the US, only marriages are registered with the
| government. So you can't really count long-term
| relationships or even common-law marriages.
|
| That's probably why that's all they're looking at. It's
| the only thing that can be measured as a proxy for stable
| relationships.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| Europe has a better social safety network and wants people to
| have more kids.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Germany has the same fertility rate as Japan.
| dangus wrote:
| Sweden is a better example. Incredible parental support,
| high birth rates compared to the rest of Europe.
|
| (Personally, I don't think high birth rates are a good
| thing. The long term survival of our species depends on
| curtailing global population. But that's a different
| subject.)
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| > and wants people to have more kids.
|
| That doesn't seem to be the case. The last 60 years saw
| plenty of anti family propaganda (same like in the US) and
| the numbers confirm that trend.
|
| The only people keeping the number of kids per family high
| are immigrants from Africa / Middle East who haven't been
| indoctrinated for 60 years.
| dukeyukey wrote:
| How many African and Middle Eastern immigrants do you
| think the US currently has?
|
| I'll give you a hint - it's quite a lot less than the
| number of Mormons in the US. Who are a group
| significantly whiter than the US general population, and
| with higher birth rates to boot.
| corethree wrote:
| Yes hyper individuality is part of it. The other part of it
| is gender equality. For most of human civilization genders
| were not equal so both sexes evolved traits that are also
| unequal.
|
| The most glaring trait responsible for lack of marriage is
| female hypergamy. Previously women being of generally
| unequal/lower status then men and overall a smaller pool of
| candidates (no online dating) would be forced to be more
| egalitarian in mate selection. It was easy for a woman to
| find a man who got paid more than them because this was most
| men.
|
| Now that women are doing better and having relatively more
| equal pay with men hypergamy is rearing it's head in a more
| pronounced fashion. Female selection preferences are much
| more strict because if women are getting paid equally with
| men then they must find men that are paid more as well and
| this is obviously a much smaller pool than when women had no
| jobs.
|
| This along with exposure to the top men via online dating,
| women can now match with the top men in the entire city
| rather then the top men in her social circle. And this is
| exactly what you see in the online dating statistics.
|
| The top 20% of men match with the top 80% of women and the
| bottom 20% of women match with the bottom 80% of men. I mean
| as progressive as you want to be there's no denying what I'm
| saying here as this data is just glaring. It spits in the
| face of people who say otherwise as it's measuring current
| dating behavior. Individualism is part of the story because
| it does push for more power for women overall. But it is in
| the end this individualism among women that is changing the
| game in the US. But not just the US, other countries as well.
|
| So what's going on is you have a few men who have an
| abundance of choice. They're never going to settle because
| when men have an abundance of choice they switch their mating
| strategy from monogamy to harlem style polygamy. And then the
| rest of the men have a much harder time finding anyone at
| all.
|
| This is actually more beneficial to women from certain
| theoretical perspectives. In anthropology there's a saying
| that monogamy benefits men while polygamy benefits women and
| general female behavior shows it. Basically for the best
| genes and resources, women generally prefer to "share" a top
| alpha man with other women over being in an exclusive
| monogamous relationship with a beta male.
|
| Men on the other hand don't accept this strategy because they
| are providers of resources. If a woman sleeps with another
| man then the partner may end up raising and spending
| resources on another mans child. Thus all men have intense
| instincts to basically end an entire relationship once a
| woman has a single sexual affair.
|
| You can actually see how this behavior plays out in certain
| countries like Japan where women are totally ok with their
| husbands fucking prostitutes. As long as that man "loves"
| them and is providing resources for them, fucking a
| prostitute without love is totally ok for japanese women.
| Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/i9qS5vDXLSI
|
| Basically we live in an era of changing social norms and it's
| accelerating natural selection. The majority of men born
| today will not pass on their genes. Traits of alpha males
| including height, confidence will be expressed to a greater
| extent in future generations and it's possible for the trend
| to continue roughly culling the bottom 80% of men out of the
| evolutionary process.
|
| Women are slowly getting the upper hand in terms of natural
| selection, and for men to get the upper hand usually they
| have to reintroduce monogamy back into the society as this
| guarantees a mate for every man. Monogamy is the more
| beneficial strategy to men overall because very few men can
| actually benefit from polygamy just by the nature of the way
| numbers work. Monogamous restrictions are pervasive enough
| throughout human civilization that some women have even
| evolved monogamous instincts via sexual selection as men
| actually actively seek these traits out in women.
|
| This is basically what's going on from the most scientific
| point of view. It's not politically correct so a lot of
| people vehemently disagree. Of course everything I say here
| is speaking to a general truth. There are plenty of
| exceptions but those exceptions do not negate the existence
| of the general truth.
| oasisaimlessly wrote:
| One of your 20%'s was probably intended to be 80%.
|
| That aside, yeah; we live in an interesting time. Sadly,
| technological progress, equality, and monogamy are all
| positively correlated, so despite some acceleration of
| natural selection, this is surely a net negative for
| society.
| corethree wrote:
| > One of your 20%'s was probably intended to be 80%.
|
| corrected, thanks.
| ckrapu wrote:
| An assumption here is that attractive men both pair with
| women at a higher rate and also have more children. I don't
| see any reason that's the case - the very largest families
| I am aware of in my extended social circle belong to men
| who are not necessarily the greatest catches.
| corethree wrote:
| >An assumption here is that attractive men both pair with
| women at a higher rate and also have more children. I
| don't see any reason that's the case - the very largest
| families I am aware of in my extended social circle
| belong to men who are not necessarily the greatest
| catches.
|
| Three things.
|
| 1. Attractive is not physical attraction. While men are
| visual women have different criteria for attraction that
| is much more multivariate. Wealth, confidence, looks,
| power, personality. Generally, overall social status and
| height are the two most consistent metrics for female
| attraction preferences.
|
| 2. What I'm describing is a recent phenomenon. A gradual
| shift that we're seeing in the last decade or so, so
| relationships established at the beginning of 2010 and
| before tend to be more traditional/conservative.
|
| 3. Birth control changes the game. Evolution manifests
| procreation as both a conscious desire to have children
| and as sexual urges from men and women. Thus I may be
| incorrect here. It may be that thanks to birth control
| alpha men may not spread their progeny as much and that
| people in healthy monogamous relationships end up
| creating the next generation as hook up culture
| essentially is an evolutionary dead end with birth
| control.
| hadlock wrote:
| > 2. What I'm describing is a recent phenomenon. A
| gradual shift that we're seeing in the last decade or so,
| so relationships established at the beginning of 2010 and
| before tend to be more traditional/conservative.
|
| There is room for considerable bias here;
|
| 1. Most generations consider their immediate neighbors
| more and less conservative, going back and forward
| respectively
|
| 2. People become more conservative with age; particularly
| when major investments are in play such as a home
| purchase and having children. It's a small coincidence
| that children and mortgages both take about 20 years to
| come to fruition.
| corethree wrote:
| >There is room for considerable bias here;
|
| Agreed. But the issue with bias is that the biased person
| is unable to visualize their own bias. They always think
| the other party is biased. Unfortunately I believe that
| out of both of us here, the bias actually lies with you
| but you're unable to see it. Here's why:
|
| >1. Most generations consider their immediate neighbors
| more and less conservative, going back and forward
| respectively
|
| Yeah, but i'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a
| general trend towards liberalism. The past decade brought
| about a general liberal movement outside of the one where
| people get more conservative with age.
|
| That much is obvious. Society is shifting towards more
| and more woke-ism, feminism which is good in some ways
| but in other ways it's becoming extremist on those
| fronts. It's so extreme that many of the liberal policies
| in California are causing an exodus where people move to
| more conservative states like arizona and texas.
|
| >2. People become more conservative with age;
| particularly when major investments are in play such as a
| home purchase and having children. It's a small
| coincidence that children and mortgages both take about
| 20 years to come to fruition.
|
| I'm talking Monogamy and polygamy. Not finances or
| investments or law. For example in the 60s women sex
| before marriage was not normal. Now a body count of 5+
| among women before marriage is considered normal. But you
| realize this has nothing to do with mortgages, children
| or major investments.
|
| The bias here lies with the fact that you see things
| through the lens of politics. I'm talking about
| anthropology and biology. It's human Behavior and
| psychology... Not politics.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| You'll be downvoted on this website, but you spoke nothing
| but facts.
|
| ###
|
| I'll sum this up.
|
| The female's mating strategy is the dual mating strategy
| (genetics vs resources). Historically women had to find
| some balance in this (should i marry the prince or the
| struggling artist - plot of tianic). Modern society
| satifies the resources side of the equation (whether that
| be overt welfare or covert welfare (getting a student loan
| + going to college + paper pushing corporate job)), leaving
| women the freedom to completely maximize the genetics side.
| The men providing the genetics side has no incentive to
| stick around to fulfill the resources side.
| withinboredom wrote:
| There are a metric shit ton of assumptions in here that I'm
| not sure are true. The truth of the matter is that women
| tend to work together and men... not so much. Once you see
| the whole picture, I can see how you can see the world
| through such a perverse lens.
|
| Sadly, I'm about to hop off the train, but if someone
| replies that they are interested, I'll provide a writup
| that will surprise you.
| corethree wrote:
| None of what I said is assumed. It's well defined
| theories of human behavior from both evolutionary
| psychology and anthropology.
|
| I am simply regurgitating academic facts. This is
| markedly different from "assumptions."
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| U.S., Denmark, Sweden, and Finland all have roughly the same
| divorce rates.
|
| Source: https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/divorce-rate-
| by-count...
| WillAdams wrote:
| I think that's it in a nutshell.
|
| Divorce is also more common for selfish and self-centered
| people, and I would argue that those traits do not make for
| good parents. (which is not to say that a good person should
| remain married to such a spouse --- arguably the only thing
| worse than a good divorce is a bad marriage)
|
| Ages ago, I worked at a school for boys, and one could pretty
| much map negative trats of the parents to corresponding
| unsocial behaviours on the part of the child.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Ages ago, I worked at a school for boys, and one could
| pretty much map negative trats of the parents to
| corresponding unsocial behaviours on the part of the child.
|
| My parents were both teachers, and it was a very commonly
| held belief among teachers that you could predict a kid's
| academic outcome reasonably well by simply learning about
| their parent(s) behaviors and home life. Kids' academic
| achievement has little to do with the quality of schools,
| quality of teachers, wealth or poverty of the area, but has
| everything to do with the positive and negative traits of
| their parents.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I strongly agree with this, but it is an inconvenient truth
| because everyone wants to search out good policy in the
| domain space to improve outcomes. That is unfortunately
| extremely challenging, as you can't fix broken parents. You
| end up having to design systems to clean up the mess after
| kids turn into adults, because there are limited mechanisms
| to encourage better behavior from suboptimal parents.
|
| (did a sustained stint as a volunteer guardian ad litem [1]
| and occasionally provide advice to others performing the
| work)
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/guardian_ad_litem
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > but it is an inconvenient truth because everyone wants
| to search out good policy in the domain space to improve
| outcomes
|
| Just because something defines 90% of the result, it
| doesn't mean you must just give-up and not work on that
| remaining 10%.
|
| The same applies to the luck vs. hard work problem people
| keep missing the point about.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Never said to give up, but be realistic about the effort
| to outcome improvement ratio. Universal school lunches
| are an easy win [1], for example. With time and resources
| having limits, target what provides the most value. Take
| care of kids until they reach escape velocity.
|
| [1] https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-
| passed-univer...
| em-bee wrote:
| _Divorce is significantly more common for bipolar, paranoid,
| and schizophrenic people for example_
|
| is that really a significant factor? i'd think that the number
| of people suffering from mental issues is a minority, and even
| if in their group are more divorces, those should only be a
| fraction of the total number of divorces.
| Retric wrote:
| Yes, because either parent could have menial issues.
| Especially when you include things like gambling addiction
| which are also linked to divorce.
|
| ~2.8% of the population has bipolar disorder. The odds that
| one partner at the start of a relationship is bipolar should
| be ~5.6%. 1% of the population is schizophrenic so ~2% of the
| population. We aren't quite up to 7.6% of relationships just
| from those 2 groups because there's overlap but it does
| stack.
|
| Granted I haven't done the research to pin down exact numbers
| but higher rates of divorce operates in both directions. So
| stable couples are healthier than average and divorced
| couples are worse than average.
| jamespo wrote:
| Maybe nonstable are less likely to have relationships /
| kids
| somehnguy wrote:
| Maybe, but over my 30 years every piece of anecdotal
| evidence I've seen *and* the movie _Idiocracy_ says the
| exact opposite.
| Retric wrote:
| Sure, which is why you want actual real research.
|
| Still something like 16-25% of the overall population has
| some form of diagnosable mental illness, couples have 2
| people, and divorced are more likely to have various
| conditions. So the effect size would need to be huge for
| this not to be relevant.
| hadlock wrote:
| Post a generality on HN and you're bound to get corrected
| by the math police.
|
| Most studies agree that bipolar disorder is not evenly
| distributed across the sexes. Schizophrenia is roughly
| equal but occurs for men before/during peak childbearing
| years, and for women happens after.
| Retric wrote:
| > Most studies agree that bipolar disorder is not evenly
| distributed across the sexes.
|
| I don't think that actually impacts the statistics here
| the way you think it would.
|
| Suppose 2% of the population had X. If 1% of women had X,
| ~3% of men would have X and therefore ~4% of couples
| would.
|
| Nailing down the differences in divorce rates, age of
| onset, differences in rates of relationship formation,
| etc are all worth considering. But my point was simply
| it's significant not that I had calculated some exact
| number.
| badrabbit wrote:
| Parents being formally committed to one another.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Obligatory note that it's unethical to do a real control
| experiment at society wide levels, so we will never untangle
| causation/correlation.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| natural experiments to the rescue!
| Retric wrote:
| Which is why I was suggesting widows, they should be more
| directly comparable to single mothers after you correct for
| income.
| ACow_Adonis wrote:
| I know Australia would provide a psuedo-natural experiment,
| because of the family laws effectively making de-facto
| relationships legally more or less equivalent of actual
| marriage.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| Married people vs divorced probably have the same distribution
| of mental illness. I think it has to due more with two incomes,
| two parents attention/time/insights/wisdom to benefit from.
| Maybe mom is good at math and dad is good at writing or
| history. It seems like more is better when it comes to raising
| a kid--hence the phrase 'it takes a village'. I bet if you did
| a study that also counted how many other extended family
| members are involved in the kid's life that would also show the
| same correlation.
| janalsncm wrote:
| There's also the financial benefits of having two adults
| sharing responsibility under one roof. Switching every weekend
| doesn't scale.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| "Their book suggests that many women don't marry the father of
| their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but
| because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic
| security or stability."
|
| Marriage is not a magical thing that fixes economic problems,
| even if you want to keep turning the clock back and make certain
| acts outside of marriage illegal. The only thing that fixes
| economic problems is money.
|
| "Kearney says she wants to grab the attention of both
| conservatives who say they care about children's well-being and
| progressives reluctant to talk about family structures, because
| the link between single parenting, inequality and mobility in
| America is too strong to deny."
|
| Marriage is not a magical thing that creates good family
| structures, and parents can be deadbeat parents even within a
| marriage. It might give people motivation to stick around, but
| families that "stick together for the children" can have A)
| abuse, and B) the same sort of economic problems as unmarried if
| one or both parents aren't working. What does enable good family
| structures is support, provided by extended family or other
| things.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I would like to hear from people who downvote you their
| reasons. In discussions such as these where nuances matter a
| lot, a downvote (or upvote) is meaningless.
| ryanklee wrote:
| Dowbvotes could very well be because GP is putting words in
| the paper's mouth. And not very good words either.
| COGlory wrote:
| >Marriage is not a magical thing that creates good family
| structures, and parents can be deadbeat parents even within a
| marriage. It might give people motivation to stick around, but
| families that "stick together for the children" can have A)
| abuse, and B) the same sort of economic problems as unmarried
| if one or both parents aren't working. What does enable good
| family structures is support, provided by extended family or
| other things.
|
| We're talking about _on average_ though. Those things might
| happen, but only in a very small number of cases, and on
| average forcing a marriage to "work" might still be better.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >and on average forcing a marriage to "work" might still be
| better.
|
| For the children yes, and in a time when you had little
| information and were told it was your purpose in life to have
| children this might have worked.
|
| Today this is just going to lead people to say "Well, fuck
| having children", and with the US child fertility rate at
| 1.64 this seems to be the 'average' decision that has been
| taken.
| chadash wrote:
| > Marriage is not a magical thing that fixes economic problems,
| even if you want to keep turning the clock back and make
| certain acts outside of marriage illegal. The only thing that
| fixes economic problems is money.
|
| Speaking as a parent, I'm not sure this is true. If I didn't
| have my wife, then I would need to take twice as many sick days
| for my kids, which would be very tough on my career. I wouldn't
| have an extra salary (or if she didn't work, then a full time
| person caring for my kids). I wouldn't have someone to split
| school pickup/drop off with, which again would be very taxing
| on my career. I'd still need the same amount of space in my
| home with or without my wife. And all of this also means that
| we have more time for child/parent interactions at home.
|
| So yeah, I think there's huge benefits to having a spouse
| around while raising kids.
| Atheros wrote:
| He talked about not having a marriage and you misread it as
| not having a partner. That's a pretty severe misunderstanding
| and I'm very curious what caused it.
| bloopernova wrote:
| America is moving the other way because all the wealth and power
| has been sucked up by the 0.1% and a large majority are too
| tired, stressed, and poor.
|
| _Everything_ stems from this.
|
| Too much wealth tied up in the health insurance scam to switch to
| single payer, so people stay bound to their employment, and they
| can't afford time off or visits to the doctor because nothing is
| completely covered anymore.
|
| Too much wealth available to politicians and getting elected
| requires massive funding, so already rich folk are the vast
| majority of elected officials now. Which means they're completely
| out of touch of what a poor person's life consists of nowadays.
| christophilus wrote:
| I'm not sure everything stems from this. Marriage was not just
| for the wealthy and nobles in the Middle Ages, or in the 1800s
| or in subsaharan Africa, etc.
|
| If it's a matter of relative wealth disparity, there have been
| plenty of eras (probably the majority of recorded human
| history) in which the kings and nobles had a similar wealth gap
| to their poorest married subjects as we see today between the
| 1% and the 99%.
|
| I'm not defending wealth disparity; simply suggesting there's
| likely another cause for the marriage-rate collapse.
| Mayzie wrote:
| You can't survive or support a family with a single income
| these days.. It's required for both partners to work.
| pleoxy wrote:
| Been doing it for more than 15 years.
|
| Where there is a will, there is a way.
| pylua wrote:
| You certainly can, but going by the numbers most people
| can't.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| In what sense? Where are the people starving to death?
| Most people seem to be able to do just fine on zero
| incomes.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Can't see the goalposts anymore, where are they?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| >>>> You can't survive or support a family with a single
| income these days.
| Belopolye wrote:
| The issue for most is likely student loans impacting
| buying power.
| kbelder wrote:
| >can't
|
| Won't. Some can't, but we can't tell how many.
| bequanna wrote:
| You absolutely can. Our family does and many of my friends
| do. They aren't all wealthy people.
|
| It isn't always a choice, but often it is. Many people can
| live on one income but choose a lifestyle that requires
| two.
| 2devnull wrote:
| Do you live in an area with high _international_ demand
| for housing?
|
| Not all of the US is a hot spot for high paid immigrants,
| yet. Displacement is a real thing. Not everyone can
| change states or nations to make the finances work out.
| bequanna wrote:
| Luckily in the US you can choose to live wherever you
| want. If you're priced out of a neighborhood, you can
| choose to live somewhere else.
|
| You can also choose how many and why type of cars to
| have, what food to eat, how much to spend on vacations,
| etc.
|
| Hell, you can even choose where and what you do for work!
| What a country!
|
| Many people will choose higher spending power with two
| incomes rather than take a step down to live on one.
| 2devnull wrote:
| You are agreeing in a weird way. Yes, in America if you
| live somewhere that other people want to live, then you
| have to move or take on two incomes. That was my point,
| that because US real estate has become an attractive
| investment over the past decades and the growth and
| current size foreign capital outweighs the average
| American family's purchasing power which results in:
| people resort to two incomes, wait to start families,
| have fewer children when they do have children, etc...
| gls2ro wrote:
| I am not sure how it is in US but sharing a bit from my
| perspective (living in EU):
|
| The (mental) cost of moving is sometimes hard. Here are
| only two main things:
|
| - you lose your support system (friends, family)
|
| - you lose your time (and maybe cost) saving
| tricks/knowledge (where to go to buy things, medicine,
| ...)
|
| All these are not impossible to solve but they are way
| harder for single parent family.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| You are free to live any where but most people live near
| jobs. Great rhat you can get a 10k house in Detroit...
| bad cause there are no jobs.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> bad cause there are no jobs._
|
| Yet Detroit's unemployment rate is 3.8%. For comparison,
| New York's unemployment rate is 4.6% and San Francisco's
| unemployment rate is 4.0%.
| c-cube wrote:
| > You can also choose how many and why type of cars to
| have
|
| See that's an interesting example. In most places in the
| US[^1] you have no realistic choice but to have at least
| 1 car per adult in the household. That's not quite the
| full extend of choice for "how many cars" one would wish
| for.
|
| > what food to eat
|
| Have you heard of "food deserts"?
|
| [^1] this is false in a few places that were not
| bulldozed in the 1960s and still allow for non-car
| centric life. These places tend to have very high cost of
| living because they're desirable.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| A few years back when I worked in a downtown office in a
| suburban metro, my wife would often drop me off/pick me
| up and then she'd have the car all day. Other times I'd
| bike. When only one person works outside the home, you
| have more flexibility.
|
| We also lived in what was barely not a food desert at
| that time, and we walked to the grocery store all the
| time. "Food desert" can mean it takes 10 minutes to walk
| to the store. Like for a low income urban census tract it
| means 0.5 miles. We go on afternoon walks 3-5x that every
| day.
| Belopolye wrote:
| Don't let the reality that this was in response to a
| statement that implied a universal reality that it's
| impossible to raise a family on a single income be lost
| on you.
|
| I'm the sole breadwinner, my wife and I have six kids,
| and I don't make fantastic money for being a developer
| ($60,000/year- took a haircut for this role for the 100%
| work from home). We make it work.
| em-bee wrote:
| there is a hair in your comment that probably should not
| be there...
| liquidpele wrote:
| To be fair, this is mostly a consequence of women entering
| the workforce. Not that that's bad, but it's an unintended
| consequence that companies were then able to convince
| workers to work for less because people could survive on it
| still.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Yeah see I think that's part of the wealth being sucked
| into the 0.1%
| otteromkram wrote:
| "To be fair..."
|
| If you leave this out of your response, do you believe
| that you're still conveying the same message?
|
| I do.
| foogazi wrote:
| This assumes they competed for the same jobs, is that
| true ?
|
| Why didn't women entering the workforce lead to growth
| and more jobs being created ?
| liquidpele wrote:
| Because it's not about the jobs, it's about what salary
| people will settle for.
|
| If a family had to make X to live comfortable before, now
| you can do so with each of you making half that as long
| as it adds up to X. People shouldn't settle for less, but
| they do even if only a few percent... where before people
| didn't to the same degree because it had more immediate
| impact.
|
| This in turn is one of the several market forces that has
| contributed to deflated wages.
| jollofricepeas wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| Manufacturing jobs used to exist.
|
| Manufacturing jobs used to exist in high numbers.
|
| Manufacturing jobs that didn't require a high school
| education existed in high numbers.
|
| Manufacturing jobs that paid well and provided a pension
| and didn't require high education existed in high numbers.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That's an argument that should be _increasing_ the number
| of dual parent households. If a family could be supported
| on a single income, then abandoning your family would have
| fewer consequences and thus seemingly more likely.
| pixl97 wrote:
| No, what you would expect to see is a drastic decrease
| number in the number of children born. People are
| choosing not to have families at all.
|
| In late 1960 we peaked with somewhere around 47% of
| households having children. It is now around 26%
|
| In 1990 the number of married couples in the US started
| to flatline even though the population is up 40% since
| then.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| A substantial reason for that is cultural change though.
| You can't close to double the supply of something without
| expecting the price to go down (probably by something close
| to half).
| lapcat wrote:
| > I'm not defending wealth disparity; simply suggesting
| there's likely another cause for the marriage-rate collapse.
|
| In the past that you're talking about, women were not allowed
| to be independent, i.e., own property or obtain jobs that
| could support a family. So women had little choice but to get
| married.
|
| As long as non-marriage is a realistic choice for women, the
| marriage rates will never be as high as they were when
| society made women subservient.
| nec4b wrote:
| >> In the past that you're talking about, women were not
| allowed to be independent, i.e., own property or obtain
| jobs that could support a family.
|
| That is maybe half true or not true at all. Women could own
| property and could be somewhat independent. Queen Elisabeth
| owned a whole country in the 16th century. In general not
| only women but men as well had a duty to their families and
| had to do what their parents demanded of them. And marriage
| was high on the list of things parents expected from their
| children whether they were male or female.
| otteromkram wrote:
| I think the person you're replying to was using the US as
| context (given the theme of the article), but you are
| correct that in certain regions of the world, women's
| rights to property ownership and inheritance were
| protected.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Queen Elisabeth owned a whole country in the 16th
| century.
|
| That's one women, and a strange example to cite, because
| my comment was in response to a discussion about the
| disparity of wealth ("kings and nobles had a similar
| wealth gap to their poorest married subjects as we see
| today between the 1% and the 99%). Obviously, queens have
| no trouble raising successful children, but that doesn't
| help anyone else in society. (It should be noted,
| however, that Elizabeth I was the so-called "Virgin
| Queen" who had no children.)
| nec4b wrote:
| >> That's one women, and a strange example to cite
|
| Why? She an example of a very well known women completely
| in charge of a future empire in the 16th century. I
| thought it was clear there were also untold numbers of
| ordinary women who were also completely in charge of
| their own households from ancient times till modern age.
| It is kind of hard to give an example of a woman nobody
| would know.
| lapcat wrote:
| > I thought it was clear there were also untold numbers
| of ordinary women who were also completely in charge of
| their own households from ancient times till modern age.
|
| I don't think that's clear.
|
| As for recent history, here's some US labor force
| participation data from 1948 to the present. Notice the
| stark contrast at the beginning.
| https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/03/women-in-the-
| labor-f...
| jollofricepeas wrote:
| Well...
|
| The reason for marriage collapse is lack of well paying
| manufacturing jobs.
|
| The American Economic Institute -
| https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010
|
| Brookings Institute study -
| https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-
| impa...
| userinanother wrote:
| Which might be fine if after that men went home and took
| over traditional female tasks like cooking, cleaning and
| childcare. But they didn't, and instead women ended up
| bringing in the money and having to do everything else
| while the husbands played video games and didn't
| contribute. This resulted in women getting rid of the
| husband so they didn't have an extra kid to take care of.
| lvl102 wrote:
| I find it ridiculous that healthcare is the greatest driver of
| cost of living but no one does anything about it. Doctors and
| nurses are overworked too. It's the biggest scam going right
| now and all the politicians are in on it.
| unnamed76ri wrote:
| You can place the blame for both things on the federal
| government.
|
| 1. Obamacare was promised to save families $2500 per year.
| Instead healthcare costs have predictably nearly doubled.
|
| 2. A few decades ago the government actively discouraged
| medical schools from enrolling enough would-be doctors
| because they had a misguided belief that the country would
| have too many.
| lvl102 wrote:
| PPACA was one of the biggest policy fails and put us at a
| great competitive disadvantage. We were coming out of the
| Great Financial Crisis and the Rust Belt desperately needed
| manufacturing revival which the likes of Walmart forced
| abroad. At least some of that is reversing.
| userinanother wrote:
| CPI says it's 8% of your basket. Thats obviously not true
| seaman1921 wrote:
| nice excuse for not being able to maintain relationships. Going
| by your logic, maintaining one in poorer countries should be
| impossible
| pylua wrote:
| I suspect there are other complicating factors in western
| cultures that may but additional stress on relationships,
| including blaming yourself instead of the environment for
| your situation.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Being an average person in a poor country is very different
| from being poor in a rich country.
| em-bee wrote:
| very much this. in "poor countries" people can have a
| lifestyle that matches their income, and they can survive
| on that. yes, many struggle, and they all would like to
| have a better life, but most can at least find an
| affordable place to live and don't go hungry.
|
| the problem in "rich countries" is that affordable places
| to live are missing. so being poor without government
| support to pay for a home causes you to be homeless.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Everything stems from this.
|
| Almost everything.
|
| One issue is that although most Western countries have Paid
| Parental Leave (except for US) pregnancy still puts women at a
| career disadvantage. Because companies can sometimes find out
| that either (a) the person's role was unnecessary or (b) their
| replacement is better.
|
| And so especially for women in senior positions it's just not
| worth the risk.
|
| Another is around the cost and availability of child care.
| Current global shortage is a real issue.
| em-bee wrote:
| so effectively that means that children themselves are a
| career disadvantage, which is a problem in itself that needs
| to be addressed because we can't sustain a society where
| having children is a negative.
|
| the equality part of the issue could be addressed with men
| getting equal parental leave, but it doesn't solve the actual
| problem.
|
| we really need to support parenting more, deemphasize the
| importance of career and emphasize the importance of having
| children.
| unnamed76ri wrote:
| Everything does not stem from wealth inequality. Almost-
| everything wrong in US culture stems from selfishness. Which
| would include things you talked about. But it also includes
| people making selfish choices that bring about the end of their
| marriages (affairs, career, addictions).
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| ? So the wealth inequality right?
|
| How do you think the wealthy got wealthy without selfishness?
|
| You seem to be implying that it isn't the inequality, but
| that all those poor people should stop being selfish.
|
| If only those poor people would stop being selfish, the
| wealth inequality wouldn't be a problem.
|
| LOL.
| hirundo wrote:
| Wealth follows a Pareto distribution, and there are many
| Pareto distributions of things that are not caused by
| selfishness.
|
| https://www.thelangelfirm.com/debt-collection-defense-
| blog/2...
|
| If selfishness isn't a good general explanation for Pareto
| distributions, is there a reason that it's particularly
| explanatory for wealth distribution?
| wenebego wrote:
| They are choosing to further enrich themselves past what
| any single person can consume, instead of helping those
| around them, the definition of selfishness.
| hirundo wrote:
| You could get the same distribution if everyone is
| assigned a random amount of selfishness regardless of
| wealth, but some people are better at achieving their
| selfish goals than others, or just luckier. How could
| someone know that the result is primarily due to non-
| uniform selfishness?
|
| You could measure selfishness in small experimental
| scenarios and try to correlate it with the wealth of the
| subjects. Does that evidence exist?
| wenebego wrote:
| I never claimed that.
| unnamed76ri wrote:
| You seem to be looking for an argument that I don't care to
| be invited to.
| 2devnull wrote:
| "How do you think the wealthy got wealthy"
|
| Most inherit it. Then lose it. That's the typical path of
| wealth. Rarely, it's amassed by someone who starts with
| little. Here these people, the ones who create rather than
| squander wealth, are called "selfish" often by the wealth
| squanderers, the children of abundance.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Some things stem from wealth inequality.
| 2devnull wrote:
| Name one thing.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| In the US, nutrition
| theduder99 wrote:
| food stamps can be used to buy nutritious food
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Agreed but food stamps are finitely available per unit
| time, whereas wealthy people could be considered availed
| of far far more food stamps per unit time.
| jollofricepeas wrote:
| Wealth inequality means less well-paying jobs for the lower
| class.
|
| Specifically, less high paying manufacturing (labor) jobs.
|
| There's lot of studies that show that marriage rates have
| decreased because of...
|
| - the decrease in union power
|
| - globalization (offshoring)
|
| - technological innovation
|
| Read them here:
|
| American Economic Institute -
| https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010
|
| Brookings Institute -
| https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-
| impa...
| uoaei wrote:
| Having travelled a fair bit, I can tell you that economic
| insecurity breeds a culture of selfishness, not the other way
| around. Where people are not economically precarious, there's
| almost no culture of trying to get one up on those around
| you. It's when you're scared of falling behind that you
| struggle so hard to keep yourself ahead.
|
| Wealth inequality is strongly correlated but ultimately not
| the root cause -- it is rather _precarity_ that causes many
| of our social ills.
| pylua wrote:
| I strongly agree with this. It's unbelievable to me that no
| media outlet can reach this conclusion.
| dietsche wrote:
| This argument is non sequitor. If wealth inequality was the
| problem, couples would be forced by economics to work together
| to bring in more together than they could separately and to
| share resources like housing to reduce costs.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| You think this isn't happening?
|
| The problem is now even dual incomes are not enough. So when
| squeezed, guess what, people get stressed and start
| crumbling.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Yes, if people are perfectly spherical economic machines.
| lapcat wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > many women don't marry the father of their child not
| because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they
| do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or
| stability.
|
| If you think of marriage as purely a business partnership,
| would you go into business with someone who is unreliable?
|
| It's better to be a sole proprietorship than have your entire
| business brought down by a bad partner, where both partners
| are liable for the bad partner's actions and decisions.
| em-bee wrote:
| the partnership started the moment they decided to have a
| child. so why even have a child with someone who is
| unreliable?
| lapcat wrote:
| > the partnership started the moment they decided to have
| a child.
|
| Assuming they "decided".
|
| > so why even have a child with someone who is
| unreliable?
|
| Because you want a child? Sperm donor.
| angmarsbane wrote:
| Because women have a limited window to have children and
| have to work with the options available. A woman can't
| put off kids indefinitely waiting for partners to
| stabilize financially, emotionally etc.
| em-bee wrote:
| that window is at least 20 years wide. if it's not
| possible to find a reliable partner in that time then the
| world is in a very sorry state.
|
| i accept that it can be difficult, and that people can be
| blinded by love but if i already know that a person is
| unreliable enough that i don't want to marry them, then
| why have a child from them?
| rychco wrote:
| I think the blame can be squarely placed on the cost of
| housing.
| pleoxy wrote:
| You don't buy a marriage. If you try you are doing it wrong.
|
| Finances are a component of marriage, not the driver.
| hirundo wrote:
| Finance used to be the driver of marriage, and now that it is
| less so there are fewer marriages.
| pleoxy wrote:
| Till layoff do us part.
|
| How could I miss that it's fundamentally part of everyone's
| martial vows?? /S
|
| Marriage is about love, companionship, and children.
| Particularly because of children there will always be a
| significant economic component. But it's not the driver,
| it's a supporting component.
| jollofricepeas wrote:
| Actually...
|
| You're right.
|
| Wealth inequality means less jobs for the lower class.
| Specifically, less high paying manufacturing (labor) jobs.
|
| There's lot of studies that show that marriage rates have
| decreased because of...
|
| - the decrease in union power
|
| - globalization (offshoring)
|
| - technological innovation
|
| Read them here:
|
| American Economic Institute -
| https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010
|
| Brookings Institute - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-
| marriage-gap-the-impa...
| throwaway5Am1k wrote:
| At some point, you need to stop blaming (or giving power to)
| others for your situation, and take control for your own
| wellbeing. Who you marry is well within your control, and not
| the 0.1%. Take some responsibility, it's a good first step to
| improving your, and your community's situation.
|
| >Everything stems from this.
|
| No, not it doesn't. If you think that wealth distribution is
| the cause of all of today's problems, you need to do more
| exploration.
| nec4b wrote:
| >> Everything stems from this.
|
| And how do you explain how very poor countries where the top 1%
| have wealth comparable to wealthy American peers and 99% of the
| country has less income American middle class had 100 years ago
| and they have no problems with marriages?
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| What rights do women have in those country? Can they vote?
| Drive? Get abortion? Get birth control?
|
| Do they have marital rape laws? Domestic abuse laws? Do they
| have no fault divorce laws?
|
| How do they handle common law property? Custody laws?
| Parental rights?
|
| What education do they provide to young women? What
| institutions do they have supporting female financial
| independence?
|
| What role does organized religion and specifically church
| leadership play in the day to day lives of women?
|
| The answer to your question is culture. Wealth simply fuels
| culture, it is not the source of it.
| nec4b wrote:
| So in short I guess you agree not everything stems from
| wealth inequality.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> Kearney says she 's not advocating that children live in a
| household filled with marital tension or where parents are
| unhappy or mistreating each other._
|
| Then what is the proposed solution? Pointing out the problem is
| the easy part. But if you want more people to be married, and if
| they're currently choosing not to get married, then you need to
| either force them to get married against their will
| (institutionalized shotgun marriages) or incentivize them to get
| married by offering benefits to married couples. The former
| produces miserable, abusive marriages and traumatized children.
| And as for the latter, as a country we're _already_ utterly
| incapable of allocating funding for the aid of childrearing--
| where 's the guaranteed maternity/paternity leave? where's the
| socialized childcare?--so pardon me if I don't quite see that
| solution as politically feasible.
| mhb wrote:
| A good first step would be to first remove economic
| disincentives such as tax penalties and reductions in benefits.
| hfuyf65 wrote:
| Or.. remove benefits.
| pierat wrote:
| > Then what is the proposed solution? Pointing out the problem
| is the easy part.
|
| This is not a position paper. This paper is a finding of fact.
|
| Demanding that they must advocate something is an anathema to
| proper science.
|
| And, saying that "pointing out the problem is the easy part"
| indicates to me you're not in the sciences. It's laughable,
| even.
| em-bee wrote:
| solving problems is just as important as finding them. the
| parent comment may be unfair for dismissing the finding of a
| problem as the easy part, but they are absolutely right in
| asking how do we solve this.
|
| so let's be more constructive and explore possible solutions
| to this problem as well, and not just argue about the problem
| itself.
|
| i do agree that the political landscape in the US makes
| addressing this problem difficult. the only option i see is
| to develop grassroots support for this issue by changing
| peoples opinions on the need to support parenting and having
| children.
| Spivak wrote:
| You don't get it, maternity leave and socialized childcare is
| the devil talking. The downfall of society is because the
| liberal agenda to brainwash our our women and kids, the former
| with feminism making them think they can do things other then
| be homemakers, and the latter because those families with
| working women have to send their kids to childcare where
| they're taught collectivism, normalized sexual deviancy, and to
| disrespect their parents. /s
| zpeti wrote:
| Ok, this is one end of the sarcastic stereotype, but the
| other end is that:
|
| No one needs to take responsibility anymore, live life to the
| full, have sex with 200 people, take drugs and experiment,
| and eventually at 40 try and have a child with IVF because at
| that point that's your only shot. If you don't like who you
| had it with after 5 years, just leave them, it's fine. Oh and
| then pass off your children's moral social education to bad
| schools.
|
| That's also not a good plan. Neither is the one you talked
| about, but society definitely needs to find a golden middle
| ground, because something is really bad right now. The
| progressive liberal path really doesn't work in the long run.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| People might not feel that way if you didn't belittle
| homemakers (or do we need movements to let people know they
| can do things other than be doctors/lawyers/whatever
| profession you view as high status?)
|
| A more equitable solution than socialized childcare that
| recognizes that homemaker is a valuable job that lots of
| women (50% of those with children) would prefer to do would
| be to increase the refundable child tax credit. Then you
| could use that money for hired childcare or to "hire
| yourself" as a caretaker according to your preference
| (obviously men could also be the homemaker if that's what the
| couple wants).
| pixl97 wrote:
| At the end of the day I'd say even talking about homemakers
| doesn't matter as much as you think.
|
| People in general like the addition economic freedom from
| making more money. Even starting at WWII women started
| working in huge numbers in the US and that number has
| increased ever since. The sending the money back in tax
| credits barely works in a single income house because the
| otherside in the massive increase of available workers in
| the US is the massive inflation of assets. When one person
| works solely to afford a house, the other person can't take
| a break to have a child. Now add in the out of control
| costs of healthcare tied to your job no one in the younger
| generation is going to want to have a child.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Maybe, but anecdotally, despite the zeitgeist of the last
| 10 years claiming otherwise, my wife and I both raised in
| middle class suburbs of different parts of red-state
| Arizona both internalized the message growing up that
| girls not working was an anachronism that only
| Mormons/Catholics still stuck to (and that it was
| "oppressive" or weird). It's so ingrained in the
| middle/upper middle class that people can't even see it.
| e.g. this article from Yale[0]:
|
| > Despite efforts to promote gender equality in
| occupations and professions, many women still choose to
| stay at home or work part-time. In the United States, for
| example, a 2015 Gallup survey found that more than half
| of women with children under age 18 would prefer to stay
| at home over working outside the home. Also, nearly 40
| percent of women without children under age 18 indicated
| that they preferred the homemaker role.
|
| Let the phrasing sink in. Despite efforts, women still
| _prefer_ that role. It 's quite clear from context that
| their _preference_ is _wrong_.
|
| As far as economics goes, people wildly overstate how
| unachievable it is. Having a stay-at-home parent is not
| something reserved for the 1%, and in fact many poorer
| people do it for economic reasons. People have been
| taught not to want it, so they don't try to figure out
| how to make it work.
|
| [0] https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/more-
| women-stay-...
| pixl97 wrote:
| And conversely why is there no counter for men being stay
| at home rather than women? Other than a few month around
| the time of childbirth there is little reason for the
| woman to be the stay at home partner.... this is why I
| doubt the motivation behind the people saying "oh its
| just women's preference" since surely some sizable
| portion of men would also like to have this option.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| There has been some progress in that area over the last
| 30 years; the percent of stay-at-home dads has ~doubled,
| and now 18% of stay-at-home parents are dads, up from 11%
| 30 years ago[0]. There are certainly people pushing to
| normalize SAHDs in addition to calling for gender parity
| with paternity leave.
|
| That said, women are still almost 2x likely to prefer
| homemaking[1] even with the social engineering, and I
| suspect women's preferences are _stronger_ than men 's
| (e.g. I think it would be nice to be a SAHD, and I'd
| prefer it over outside work, but we probably wouldn't be
| together if my wife weren't the SAHM). So as a man you
| have to be prepared to accept that that's how the world
| is. Someone has to bring in money, and it'll probably be
| you.
|
| [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-...
|
| [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/267737/record-high-
| women-prefer...
| em-bee wrote:
| _Other than a few month around the time of childbirth
| there is little reason for the woman to be the stay at
| home partner._
|
| i think breastfeeding is still a significant factor for
| the first year at least. working while breastfeeding can
| be a challenge.
| mvncleaninst wrote:
| > A more equitable solution than socialized childcare that
| recognizes that homemaker is a valuable job
|
| It isn't a valuable job, economically speaking. It's an
| anachronism and essentially a luxury for couples where one
| parent makes enough to support the entire household. Not
| only this, but it essentially puts all of the pressure on
| the working parent to economically hold up the household
|
| The cases where it economically makes sense are practically
| nonexistent in 2023
| ndriscoll wrote:
| It's viable and modern enough that over 25% of women do
| it [0]. And there's a wide spectrum of people who make
| that choice. There's a large amount of parents that take
| on that role because their alternatives (e.g. retail jobs
| or gig work) would leave them in a worse position after
| paying for childcare, but no one's claiming retail work
| is not economically viable. Though if I had to make a
| judgement, I'd say raising your children full-time is
| more valuable work than e.g. Instacart or Starbucks,
| which are both luxuries.
|
| Honestly I don't know how you could even make an economic
| statement about it that doesn't boil down to a tautology
| unless you're also willing to say e.g. teachers aren't an
| economically valuable job.
|
| [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-...
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| The solution is to grow people in pods and raise them in
| barracks-creches. Our legacy biology will only continue to
| diverge from our environment over time.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Just rewatched the matrix, if we accomplish what you say, we
| are right on track to match the timeline of 2200.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| That adults grow up, realise that they now have a
| responsibility to each other and to their child.
|
| If that is not possible, then the solution is not to have
| children, which is a 100% fair choice.
| mannyv wrote:
| You don't need a solution when you point out a problem.
|
| I've found this attitude in a lot of people. I think it's
| designed to shut down ideas that they don't like. At least that
| tends to happen.
|
| Describing a problem builds awareness. It's the first step to a
| solution. Insisting on a solution is just another way of
| ignoring a problem.
| foogazi wrote:
| Agree - a problem without a solution is still a problem
| briHass wrote:
| The other option, which was the one traditionally used, is
| strong social pressure favoring marriage and stigmas against
| divorce. We can recognize that it's an unfortunate reality that
| will occur, while still not normalizing or glorifying it.
| pixl97 wrote:
| I think this is the incorrect other option.
|
| The other option we are seeing now is _women in general will
| greatly reduce or stop having children_.
|
| Couple this in with two members of a family required to work
| to afford housing and healthcare the entire entire
| traditionalist appeal is going to fall apart due to complete
| unworkability.
| huytersd wrote:
| Or you just take away the reason most men don't want to get
| married (atleast without a prenup). Get rid of alimony, no
| child support if the father declines when the mother is
| pregnant before 3 months, get rid of no fault divorce, cheating
| by the dependent spouse means that spouse automatically
| forfeits their share of the money.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| I think at the very least we should end all welfare causing
| perverse inventives in the family and see where the system
| settles.
|
| But im afraid pandora's box has been opened and i don't see a
| way to fix this that doesn't involve alot of people losing
| rights/individualism (which im opposed too).
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Even the problem is misidentified. Marriage is only a proxy for
| the things that are important. That's important to identifying
| a solution as you get boneheaded solutions like 'give men more
| power over women so they can't leave marriages'. Rather than
| the entirely sensible ones you mention.
| hfuyf65 wrote:
| Anecdote incoming. Usual disclaimers apply. I genuinely am not
| sure what true numbers are.
|
| Couple#1
|
| They are married for a good while with three kids. He is a cop in
| Chicago; she has semi-random kid watching gigs. While it did not
| happen, they did openly discuss strategic divorce to ease their
| financial situation.
|
| Couple#2
|
| She works corpo job. He works a cash only contracting job. They
| are married in every sense, but legally. Two kids. She would not
| marry for fear of losing existing benefits.
|
| ###
|
| There are some benefits to being married, but the 'benefits of
| kids while not married' outweigh those. And you can't argue
| against those cuz then you are taking food away from the hungry.
| em-bee wrote:
| what are those benefits you speak of? and why are they
| structured in such a way that it benefits those not legally
| married?
|
| in austria/germany at least what matters is household income.
| if you live together you get supported together. being married
| has no disadvantage.
| hfuyf65 wrote:
| Some of what I am about to say is state specific ( in my case
| IL ), so take this into consideration. Income is a
| consideration for any help. Married couple will have higher
| documented income, while unmarried cohabiting couple won't.
| In other words, single parent ( on paper ) will claim a child
| and with lower income have a better chance of being in the
| low enough income bracket.
|
| I have zero idea how common that situation is though, but I
| know someone who structures their life around snap benefits (
| or whatever they are called now ) and its kinda ridiculous,
| because her monthly benedit is on par with our family's
| grocery budget. I struggled not to report it as fraud ( the
| person in question is not poor; they are using - abusing?-
| the system ).
| em-bee wrote:
| _Married couple will have higher documented income, while
| unmarried cohabiting couple won 't_
|
| that seems to be the problem then. i think generally,
| hiding the income of a divorced partner is difficult so
| making your first scenario less likely in many places.
|
| and the other case would also require one partner to
| maintain credible evidence that they actually live apart
| and do not support each other. where i come from this is
| not easy to do.
|
| if you live in an area where this is possible then that's a
| disappointing state of local legislation.
|
| either way i doubt there is a large number of people doing
| this. at least i hope not. and it may as well be considered
| fraud.
|
| i wouldn't bother reporting it though, because it is not
| going to improve your own life.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| "Kearney says she wants to grab the attention of both
| conservatives who say they care about children's well-being and
| progressives reluctant to talk about family structures, because
| the link between single parenting, inequality and mobility in
| America is too strong to deny."
|
| She doesn't need to grab the attention of conservatives because
| her findings already support their pre-existing beliefs, like it
| says earlier in the article. I get the feeling she felt like she
| needed to phrase this very delicately.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> She doesn 't need to grab the attention of conservatives
| because her findings already support their pre-existing
| beliefs_
|
| Not quite, because the other solution to the problem is giving
| people access to sexual education and birth control so that
| they can decide to have children only _after_ they find someone
| they 're willing to marry, which are so famously contrary to
| conservative beliefs that they've based 40 years of political
| campaigning around their opposition.
| tetromino_ wrote:
| I suspect her findings that _the gender of the married parents
| is irrelevant, the thing that matters is whether or not they
| are married_ is the part that conservatives are unwilling to
| accept.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| that is a good point
| sneed_chucker wrote:
| The system of marriage in the United States was built around
| social and economic assumptions that largely don't hold anymore.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Maybe it will be rebuilt around the belief that it's a better
| environment for child rearing.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Or perhaps people will decide that childrearing is too much
| effort in addition to all the other pressures put upon them
| and birthrates will continue to fall. Perhaps South Korea and
| Japan are examples.
| lapcat wrote:
| It appears that marriage and money are inextricably bound. After
| all, Melissa Kearney is an economist. And of course the success
| of children is related to the wealth and education of their
| parents. The article mentions money many times:
|
| > Kearney notes that families headed by a single mother are five
| times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a
| married couple.
|
| > Most single mothers start from behind; they're less likely to
| have a college education or a high income. Single motherhood is a
| lot less prevalent in higher-educated women.
|
| > Data also shows that many single mothers don't have help from
| any other adult, like a grandparent or other family member. That
| means it's mom who both supports the family financially and
| serves as the primary caregiver.
|
| > many women don't marry the father of their child not because
| they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see
| him as a reliable source of economic security or stability.
|
| This doesn't look like a "moral" problem (family values, yadda
| yadda). It looks more like a monetary problem.
| jkhdigital wrote:
| As with nearly all of social science, we can't really run the
| controlled experiments necessary to determine if this is a
| causal relationship. Just because it looks like a "monetary
| problem" does not mean that throwing money at it will fix
| anything.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Just because it looks like a "monetary problem" does not
| mean that throwing money at it will fix anything.
|
| There's a grain of truth and a grain of falsity to this
| statement. It's true that indiscriminately "throwing" money
| doesn't necessarily fix monetary problems. On the other hand,
| it seems unlikely that the problem can be solved without
| addressing the economic conditions that seem to have created
| it. Certainly, lecturing people about "family values", which
| has been happening for many decades, hasn't fixed anything.
| bsder wrote:
| As people have pointed out, contrasting widowers is a good
| control group.
| bsder wrote:
| > This doesn't look like a "moral" problem (family values,
| yadda yadda). It looks more like a monetary problem.
|
| Lower socioeconomic classes have less resource. Less resource
| means children do worse. Calling Captain Obvious.
|
| Presumably, if a father was pulling his economic weight, the
| mother _would marry him_. The issue is that a male in a lower
| socioeconomic class is likely not pulling his own weight due to
| a lack of jobs.
|
| So, if you want more marriage, improve the job prospects for
| the lower socioeocnomic classes that make up big chunks of the
| population.
| jkhdigital wrote:
| The article really doesn't answer that clickbait headline, but it
| seems analogous to "Why Jews earn so many PhDs". It's mostly
| culture, which is a tangled and recursive process that can't be
| deconstructed into some government funded social programs.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Proof that we need more "family values"; more religious
| conservatism?
|
| This is what a lot of people seem to believe --- people who've
| never bothered to look at the actual evidence --- or who refuse
| to accept it once they see.
|
| A detailed county by county survey of the entire country shows
| that the most religious and conservative parts of the country
| have higher divorces rates by far.
|
| Getting married in the Bible Belt and giving money to the church
| seems to *create* a lot of one parent families.
|
| https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2014/01/16/imp...
| em-bee wrote:
| we do need more family values, but religious conservatism is
| not that. we also need equality between women and men, and that
| is where conservatism gets in the way. i suspect that lack of
| equality is what's driving most divorces in those conservative
| areas because women no longer allow themselves to be treated as
| being lesser than men, so they stand up for themselves and the
| conservative men can't handle that.
| em-bee wrote:
| it appears that some people disagree with my comment. but i
| do not understand why.
|
| am i misunderstanding what conservatism is?
|
| or do people disagree with the idea of equality between men
| and women?
|
| or with the idea that valuing family more would be better?
| fisttrain wrote:
| your comment seems to be an opinion with no actual merit
| behind it stated as fact.
| theduder99 wrote:
| that study's numbers make no sense. Looks like a hit job on
| southern conservatives. Try this:
| https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/divorce-statist...
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Your link states that evangelicals have the highest divorce
| rate out of any religion.
|
| Further, southern states do generally experience more divorce
| than areas like New England and CA.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Growing up in a southern evangelical environment I can say
| anecdotally this is no surprise. When one side of a
| partnership considers themselves their peers better it
| leads to a path that ends in divorce.
| dcre wrote:
| This article is far too generous to the argument. Matt Bruenig's
| analysis will likely appeal to some here.
|
| https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-...
|
| https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/30/response-to-douthat-on-tw...
| lordgrenville wrote:
| A substacker I follow claimed that Kearney's thesis ignores a
| confounder, that unhappily married couples are more likely both
| to split up and to have kids with worse outcomes. The fairer
| comparison would be between _unhappily married_ two-parent homes,
| and single-parent homes. Haven 't read the book so can't say if
| this is true.
|
| https://afeteworsethandeath.substack.com/p/recent-pieces-bad...
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Marriage is a legal construct; it can provide a level of security
| (and fairness) that isn't otherwise accessible. But as the laws
| change, the benefits change too.
|
| I think men marry in the hope of binding their partner; fat
| chance. Marriage gives the partner a claim on a big chunk of the
| man's assets, so it incentivizes women to divorce their husbands.
| The great majority of divorces are initiated by the wife. I'm not
| sure why women marry; I'm not a woman, but maybe the reason is
| the same.
|
| Marriage is an outdated custom. People should learn how to live
| together without submitting to these ancient legal customs.
|
| Source: I'm twice married, and twice divorced; both partnerships
| lasted 15+ years. I'll never marry again.
| ghusto wrote:
| It's mad, no? When I ask people point blank why they're getting
| married, they just stare at me. Obviously part of that is
| because I'm being autistically rude in asking such a questions,
| but I haven't heard any compelling answers either.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Well if you ask such an autistic question (given that I am
| responding to a adult person and not some small kid who
| doesn't have a clue about actual life), don't expect much, it
| clearly signalizes that you are either taking a piss or are
| so immature there is no point even discussing it. Its a bit
| like asking why do you like color blue, mature adults don't
| ask that and for kids you can say anything or nothing, same
| result.
|
| But I'll bite - if you decide to settle down with a partner
| you match with very well on tons of actually important stuff,
| including how your future together could look like while
| lacking any significant (yet known) drawbacks, and you want
| to raise kid(s) together, then the question is why not.
| Without the kids part, less reasons but why not.
|
| The inexperienced people (in my case immature kids/teens,
| I've answered similar but better formed question couple of
| times already) think its just a paper signed, and contractual
| obligations stemming from it. _Far from it, at least for us_.
| It changed our relationship, for the better, made it stronger
| and not only due to longer cancellation procedure. Do I have
| some peer-reviewed study for that? Of course not, just my
| personal 2 cents.
| hx8 wrote:
| As an adult that is seen as mature by my peers who happens
| to not understand marriage your post comes off as lacking
| empathy and also not doing a lot to explain why someone
| would choose marriage.
|
| The reasons I extracted for why someone would want to
| choose marriage.
|
| * "Why not"
|
| * Changes the relationship for the better
|
| * The relationship has longer cancellation procedure.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| You have no idea how you are actually viewed by your
| peers, here for example you are far from it, pretty
| consistently, trying hard to find reasons to prove your
| own personal opinions, while ignoring others. A bit
| pointless debate at this point, since your own second
| asterix is more than enough for the topic discussed.
|
| But to each their own.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Well, it's a naive question. And it shows laziness given the
| answer can be found at google or chatgpt (https://chat.openai
| .com/share/a1655efa-05e1-4ad0-97ca-62439d...).
|
| Most people are aware of such things and can't quite figure
| how to explain it to someone who isn't, or can't figure out
| Google. Hence the stare.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Getting married forces difficult confrontations that many
| relationships get to bypass by breaking up.
|
| If you make it through the difficult confrontations your
| relationship gains robustness and is better for your
| offspring.
| anon291 wrote:
| Marriage is a formal process that provides a standard
| framework in which two families get to know one another.
|
| The problem with American relationships is that it deals with
| two people.
|
| A marriage is the full joining of two full families. By
| marrying my wife, I made my uncle related to my wife's uncle,
| so they better kind of get along. Indeed I have a vested
| interest in them getting along because it benefits my
| children.
|
| A wedding provides a formal and socially acceptable way for
| these sorts of interactions to occur. If I just moved in with
| my wife... What are the chances her distant cousins would
| meet mine? Zero, I imagine. A wedding brings them together
| and benefits everyone.
|
| But most Americans don't really have extended families so I
| see why weddings seem strange.
| Bilal_io wrote:
| Possibly you're not seeing the answers you're given as
| compelling because of your perspective. I can speak from an
| Islamic perspective and say that sexual relationships are
| considered immoral outside of marriage, so a man and woman
| cannot create a family and have kids unless they get married.
| em-bee wrote:
| what happened in those 15 years? i don't think that your
| partner married you with the goal of taking your assets. if
| that was the case i doubt the marriages would have lasted 15
| years.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| No, you're quite right; I wasn't taken for a sucker. I think
| they ended because of the legal implications of marriage; I
| think the relationships would have survived, if there hadn't
| been contracts.
|
| In fact, they've both survived; I'm now friends with both
| exes. But the contracts caused us all a lot of damage.
|
| [Edit] I'm all for people having the same rights regardless
| of who their partner is. I'm fine with "equal marriage" in
| that sense; at the same time, I want to say "Don't do it!"
| It's like saying everyone should have the same right to walk
| into the path of an express train.
|
| It's good for some people, apparently; it looks to me that a
| subset of religious-minded people have relationships that
| marriage contracts don't screw up.
| em-bee wrote:
| _the contracts caused us all a lot of damage_
|
| could you elaborate on that, if it is possible to do so
| without revealing personal details? maybe in contrast what
| you see as a difference in the relationships of religious
| minded people?
|
| the only thing i can think of is open relationships without
| a commitment to each other. but even there i don't think
| that the contract itself would be the problem but different
| expectations of each partner. the problem of the contract
| is that it wouldn't be aligned with those expectations.
|
| marriage is for people who want to commit to each other.
| divorce happens when that commitment is no longer a
| priority.
| za3faran wrote:
| > Marriage gives the partner a claim on a big chunk of the
| man's assets, so it incentivizes women to divorce their
| husbands
|
| Mainly in the west is it unfair and broken that way. Perhaps
| they should look into fixing their marriage/divorce contracts.
| ghusto wrote:
| > Kearney's argument that children who grow up in unmarried
| households are fighting the odds has progressives miffed and
| accusing Kearney of stigmatizing single mothers
|
| I find this attitude applies to everything people don't want to
| hear. Anything that requires real change, effort, and difficulty
| seems to be met with anger and attack. It's so much easier to
| follow the accepted easy road of ignorance.
|
| > "I'm not prioritizing one. I'm just recognizing the data and
| the evidence and the reality."
|
| Good luck with that. People don't want data and evidence, they
| want to give their kids iPads at age 1 so they themselves can
| "have it all", they want to leave relationships the moment they
| realise compromise means not getting everything you want, they
| want to down pills to combat symptoms instead of working on where
| those symptoms are coming from.
| pixl97 wrote:
| The issue I have with your take on this is one of, most likely,
| reverse causality.
|
| I may be making a bad guess, but if I had to I feel I would get
| the "If these women would just stay married like a traditional
| relationship demands, then all these problems go away" answer
| from you.
|
| Now, I'll also make an assumption that you are also going to
| have a hard time admitting that this is a multi-generational
| problem caused by male lead institutions treating women like
| second class citizens where they have massively unequal power.
| Add in a little equality and you can no longer treat your
| partner like an optionless slave.
| kbelder wrote:
| Imagining the ridiculous responses you would like your
| opponent to make does give you an opportunity to win
| arguments in your mind.
|
| I don't imagine that kind of intellectual self-pleasuring is
| really convincing many other people, though.
| futureamish wrote:
| So we're not going to ask for the addresses of the people that
| created these circumstances because we really should.
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Single parents raising kids should be charged with child abuse.
|
| Get married before you engage in reproductive or recreational
| pseduo-reproductive activities.
|
| If your spouse does, find another widow(er) in the same spot and
| marry them for the kids.
|
| It's not that hard. People knew this 4,000 years ago.
| thoughtpalette wrote:
| What an archaic way of thought. I can only hope you're not
| being serious.
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Helping our children grow up to be successful adults is not
| archaic.
| giantrobot wrote:
| Holy fucking shit. This is the Poe's Lawiest Poeslaw I've seen
| in a while.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| This is something of a useless article as a discussion point,
| since it discusses the _conclusions_ the book argues for and the
| _controversy_ , but not much of the actual argument, particularly
| its factual basis (assuming there is one) beyond _post hoc ergo
| propter hoc_.
|
| Its worth noting that this issue has been discussed for a long
| time, and while the article acts as if the promotion of marriage
| in the face of trends the other way on a "think about the
| children" basis was a novel suggestion of the author, this is not
| at all the case; it's been suggested _for decades_ , been the
| basis of vast amounts of unsuccessful, even at the "step one" of
| actually influencing the marriage trend, public policy at the
| state and federal level (the latter as far back as the 1996
| Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act).
|
| And there has been lots of analysis suggesting that marriage,
| _per se_ , is not driving most of the difference, but things like
| income and parenting style are [0], and that those correlate with
| propensity to marry (but are not themselves driven _by_
| marriage), so promoting marriage is likely barking up the wrong
| tree.
|
| [0] e.g., https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-effect-
| money...
| foogazi wrote:
| Is there any survivorship bias in looking at children of married
| couples?
|
| Whatever causes a non-marriage outcome for households didn't
| happen to them: addiction, unemployment, disease, violence, etc
|
| Bad things didn't happen = success
|
| The challenge for society is resiliency in avoiding bad outcomes
| in the face of bad situations
| stainablesteel wrote:
| > Where are the dads?
|
| > One of the biggest issues is that women seem to be giving up on
| men, particularly those without college degrees
|
| this is about what i would expect from npr
|
| it has nothing to do with welfare starting in the 1960s where you
| can visibly see a breakup in families by incentivizing divorce,
| its.... college
| kleiba wrote:
| In contrast to your argument though, Europe has comparatively
| higher welfare across the board, but the US has the world's
| highest rate of children living in single-parent households.
| ls612 wrote:
| In America single parents get more access to welfare programs
| than married ones so they are specifically incentivizing
| divorce. It isn't a function of the welfare state level in
| general it's this disparate incentive.
| uoaei wrote:
| Is this just a lazy version of the "welfare queen" argument?
|
| By all metrics it's cheaper to be married. Better tax benefits,
| lower housing and insurance costs when you bundle, etc.
| mvncleaninst wrote:
| > By all metrics it's cheaper to be married. Better tax
| benefits, lower housing and insurance costs when you bundle,
| etc.
|
| yeah maybe if you do prenup it is
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Obviously this calculus does not include the cost of a
| divorce.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Welfare doesn't end good marriages, it makes ending bad
| marriages (more) possible.
| userinanother wrote:
| I do kind of wonder about the dads. American dads do more house
| duties than dads from other countries but Maybe it's just dads
| in high economic classes
| switch007 wrote:
| Candace Owens has entered the chat
| jgalt212 wrote:
| The Great Society incentivized single parent households, but you
| know these people were actually trying to help...
| Hgelo wrote:
| Education education and education.
|
| Good one of course.
|
| It's not hard. Really
| mvncleaninst wrote:
| These types of articles are doing the opposite of what they're
| trying to do. How exactly is framing marriage in purely economic
| terms supposed to encourage marriage? How is reducing people down
| to an income stream, a college diploma, genitalia, etc going to
| encourage marriage?
|
| Take this for example:
|
| > not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because
| they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or
| stability.
|
| It's really disgusting what they're doing here. They don't talk
| about whether you love the other person, or whether you
| complement each other... no, they talk about economics. They talk
| about "what's good for me and my bank account"
|
| The tone of this article: it reads like it was written by a
| sociopath. You ask the author "why do people get married" and
| hear this stupid shit about economics and "benefits to society",
| nothing about love or trust or any of the actual reasons. People
| can't just get along for some reason, economics has to insert
| itself into everything and liquidate whatever trust and
| spontaneity it can find
| userinanother wrote:
| Because initial burst of love only lasts so long. After that
| it's friendship, economics, co dependence and the other things
| that keep families working tougher as one unit
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Initial bursts by definition only last so long, but is it
| really so crazy to think that love might persist
| indefinitely?
| userinanother wrote:
| Yes, initial love and later love might be the same word but
| they mean different things. It's a deficiency in our
| language and terminology
| rayiner wrote:
| > It's really disgusting what they're doing here. They don't
| talk about whether you love the other person, or whether you
| complement each other...
|
| That's how poor people think. Marriage is one of the most
| important economic decisions you'll make for yourself and your
| children. And if you look at what the country's economic elites
| actually do, they very much take economics into account, even
| if indirectly. A huge fraction of my friends from law school
| got married to other people from school. Part of that is that
| they're around their classmates. But the social structure
| around then also gently nudges them into those decisions. My
| Asian parents didn't hide the fact that my wife's credentials
| played a major role in winning their approval, but I suspect
| the same dynamic manifested in a more subtle form among my
| classmates with American parents.
| avar wrote:
| Because at the end of the day, marriage is primarily about
| economics.
|
| You can be in love, be in a stable long term relationship,
| raise children together etc. without being married.
|
| Being married means entering a trilateral pact between two
| people, and the state. It can make sense to do so for a lot of
| reasons, e.g. tax benefits (in particular in the US, as opposed
| to many other OECD countries).
|
| That people conflate this arrangement with the government with
| what's going on in their personal lives is just fluff. It's
| understandable given cultural inertia, but if you really get
| down to it that's all it is.
| rayiner wrote:
| We should do more social studies research into US subcultures
| that have significantly different marriage norms than the
| mainstream US. Mormons and Asians both have strong taboos against
| divorce, and also have strong rates of upward mobility (i.e. much
| higher odds of kids from low income households ending up as high
| earning adults).
|
| There is some research supporting the link, but not nearly
| enough: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-marriage-and-
| divorce-... ("A child born to a never-married mother in the
| bottom fifth of family income is 3 times more likely to stay in
| the bottom fifth than a child born to a continuously married
| mother with equally low income.").
|
| It's possible that it's not marriage per se. Both Mormons and
| Asians socialize children into "do what you're obliged to do, not
| what you want to do." Marriage is one aspect of that--you get
| married, and you stay married, and what you "want" doesn't really
| matter. But it might be that mentality that also drives upward
| mobility rather than marriage per se.
| curiousfiddler wrote:
| _Both Mormons and Asians socialize children into "do what
| you're obliged to do, not what you want to do."_
|
| Wow, that's incredibly reductive. Asia has approx 4.7 billion
| people!
| huytersd wrote:
| Honestly, this thing holds true for most of them.
| DarknessFalls wrote:
| He said "US Mormons and Asians".
| squigz wrote:
| Technically, no, he didn't; note the period before Mormons
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| the comment is about "US subcultures"
| acheong08 wrote:
| I'd agree if not for the fact that this is somewhat true in
| much of Asia: China, India, Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia
| (Thailand, Malaysia, etc). I'm sure there are exceptions but
| it's hard find counter examples
| huytersd wrote:
| The Bhagavat Gita is literally a tome that argues why it's
| more important to do your duty/obligation over what you
| want.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| >Wow, that's incredibly reductive. Asia has approx 4.7
| billion people!
|
| Asian cultures are generally more collectivistic than
| individualistic compared to the West.
| anon291 wrote:
| The west used to be much more collectivist. Christianity as
| it's been practiced for most of history is a collective
| religion. The rise of individualism corresponds to the rise
| of atheism and agnosticism and 'nones' in the west.
| ecshafer wrote:
| This is one of the reasons that I think Kant's ideas on
| Deontology (also Confucian philosophy around relationships) is
| the correct one for a functioning society. There is a framework
| of "Right" and "Wrong" that exists outside of "Good" and "Bad".
| Doing what is beneficial for society, and what is expected of
| society is right, regardless of the Good nature of it. If
| society expects you to fight in a war, and you kill someone,
| that is "Right" regardless of the fact that killing is "bad".
|
| But to bring this back to the topic on hand. It is right to
| study and work hard at school, it is right to be disciplined
| and not disrupt class, it is right to work a job and do well at
| the job. This is separate from the fact that you are may be a
| good person (nice, charitable, etc). A teenager who is good,
| but not working hard is being wrong. A large part of this is
| putting wants aside to do what is right.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| It's pretty much collectivism vs individualism.
|
| The West has mostly leaned towards individualism (aka "it's a
| free country") while the East Asia under the influence of
| Confucianism is most collective.
|
| Collectivism has its downsides. It can be suffocating.
| Society also doesn't always take into consideration an
| individual's limitations when it comes to meeting societal
| obligations - a moot point in more individualistic societies.
| rayiner wrote:
| > Collectivism has its downsides.
|
| Collectivism also has upsides. I'm fascinated by Mormons
| because they seem to me to be the most Asian white people.
| Mormon men have a life expectancy almost 10 years longer
| than other white men. They have among the highest social
| mobility in the country. They, along with Jews, top the
| charts in measures of mental well being.
|
| And this is all happening within the context of America.
| They deal with the same Obamacare, seem to have basically
| the same school systems, etc.
| MandieD wrote:
| Strong, socially-enforced taboos against alcohol and
| tobacco consumption are probably a major driver of the
| longevity difference.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| The West has mostly leaned towards individualism (aka "it's
| a free country") while the East Asia under the influence of
| Confucianism is most collective.
|
| This is ridiculous. Look at the divorce rates here:
| https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/divorce-rate-by-
| count...
|
| Mainland China has a surprisingly high divorce rate.
|
| How do you explain why Canada has a divorce rate less than
| one half of the United States?
|
| Japan and the Netherlands have roughly the same divorce
| rates, and wildly different cultures.
| TerrifiedMouse wrote:
| Things have changed over the decades. Those countries
| have become more individualistic and divorce is less
| taboo among the current generation than the Boomers.
| elashri wrote:
| The consequences of the society decide what is right has very
| bad consequences i.e [1].
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem
| anon291 wrote:
| Deontology is the typical endorsed philosophy of most
| Christian ethics. I only point this out because by citing
| confucianism you make it seem as if this philosophy has no
| place in the west. But it does.
| picadores wrote:
| Its wrong to disturb societal harmony, by example: putting
| the guild of map printers out of work with a digital map from
| sattelites available on all devices.
| cinntaile wrote:
| Interesting that they're moving the other way. My impression has
| always been that there is a sort of social taboo on not getting
| married in the US when you have kids. Nice to see that finally
| changing.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| > Where are the dads?
|
| there we go. blaming men right off the bat.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| The joke was there were so many single working people my age that
| the only people having kids were either the very poor or those
| making >$400k/yr.
|
| There's no way to meet anyone, so there's no point to think about
| it. Live life without worrying about it.
| ergl wrote:
| As someone from Europe, I can't understand the inability of
| mainstream US culture and media to disentangle marriage from long
| term stable relationships. Take this paragraph from the article:
|
| > More women are deciding to have children and also remain
| single. Almost half of all babies born in the U.S. were born to
| unmarried women in 2019, a dramatic increase since 1960, when
| only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers. And it's not because
| of divorce; today's unpartnered mothers are also more likely to
| have never been married.
|
| They go from "single" to "unmarried" back to "unpartnered"
| without batting an eye. The statistics they cite are about
| marriage yet they are generalized to all single women. It doesn't
| make sense.
|
| At least the author of the book is aware of this:
|
| > In the U.S., she says, unmarried adults who decide to live
| together do it for a much shorter duration than in Europe. [...]
| "If you just look in the data, marriage is what delivers kids a
| stable, long-term, two-parent household in this country."
|
| In my opinion looking into what's driving that difference between
| couples in the US and Europe would be worth a discussion on its
| own.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-23 09:02 UTC)