Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids • Hacker News Board

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#11

Post by msandford » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 8:40 PM UTC

Kurtz79 wrote: post #5

msandford wrote: post #2

I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except maybe in a "don't feed the wild animals" sort of way, but most consider that negligible). But more in a "somebody else's problem" or a "bystander effect" sort of way. In other words, the existence of programs to help people in need -- and worse, large federally fund…

You are making the assumption that without these programs people would actually do something themselves to solve other's problems. In my opinion most people would just try to rationalize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis Government funded programs might be inefficient and open to abuses, but are better than the real alternative that would be doing nothing at all.

So I'm not railing against government programs because they're "bad" and in fact I'm not necessarily even opposed to them. I'm trying to explain a set of psychological effects that I suspect influence the way our society approaches these kinds of problems.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#12

Post by gress » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC

saturdaysaint wrote: post #4

carsongross wrote: post #3

A strong, common culture is the only historically verified way to escape the prisoners dilemma of social interactions. We've done a pretty good job of destroying that for the last fifty years in the west. "We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

Yet violence has dropped impressively in the west in the last 50 years, both in crime statistics and in the absence of wars between major powers. And the last 50 years mark many incredible advancements in society: civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, the first attempts to take sexual violence seriously, etc. etc. etc. I'd much rather be a random American today than 50 years ago.

The fallacy here is that you are acting as though these things are all fungible.

Would you rather be a random American today who is unable to form satisfying emotional relationships because of the lack emotionally available parents during development or would you rather be a random American 50 years ago who has warm loving connections?

That's what's being compared here.

Why should we have to trade one for another? This should make us recognize that there is a problem. Otherwise the apparent celebration of progress is actually just a defeatist 'be grateful for what you have'.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#13

Post by gress » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC

dzdt wrote: post #7

The last few decades in the US have seen a shift from 1 parent working sufficing to support a family to 2 parents working beening needed for middle class living, and longer hours than before. And more kids have only 1 parent in the household. There simply isn't time for participating in the community-building activities that filled the gaps before. So we are more isolated, and people's lies are in a more fragile bala…

This is capitalism failing humanity.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#14

Post by germinalphrase » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 8:53 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #2

I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except maybe in a "don't feed the wild animals" sort of way, but most consider that negligible). But more in a "somebody else's problem" or a "bystander effect" sort of way. In other words, the existence of programs to help people in need -- and worse, large federally fund…

Do you believe that our population would effectively self-educate without gov't funded education?

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#15

Post by jellicle » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 8:54 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #2

I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except maybe in a "don't feed the wild animals" sort of way, but most consider that negligible). But more in a "somebody else's problem" or a "bystander effect" sort of way. In other words, the existence of programs to help people in need -- and worse, large federally fund…

But we've had thousands of years of testing of your hypothesis, and no, individuals do not step up in any great number to solve massive societal problems of poverty.

Which is why we invented governmental action to solve them. Which has proved extremely effective.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#16

Post by tjradcliffe » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #9

Kurtz79 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I cringe when people say how things are going for the worse constantly.

Sometimes it's because things are objectively worse. Cringing doesn't change the facts. The original claim that we're less violent is easy to debunk, and has been debunked by many people. See e.g. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/john-gray-steven-... But more than that, it's clear that economics and politics have become prime vectors for social violence in the 'developed' West: particularly economics, which…

That's hardly a debunking of the thesis that violence has decreased. It cites no data, but simply declares in vague terms that some parts of the world are still violent and the sum of those parts is non-negligible, which is completely unrelated to the claim that violence has decreased.

The notion that fifty years ago "even starter jobs offered comfortable salaries" will come as a shock to people who lived then, barely getting by on piecework or similar marginal occupations. There were certainly classes of jobs where entry-level positions paid "comfortable salaries" but those jobs weren't much use to you if you were non-white, female, gay, or even from the wrong nominally-white ethnic group.

Things aren't as good as they could be, but they are still a lot better than they were by many, many measures. They are worse by a few measures, and we should be concerned about that, but in general the trend is in the right direction.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#17

Post by taeric » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 8:58 PM UTC

donbronson wrote: post #10

dominotw wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know lots of my friends have families where single income would sustain them but both husband and wife go to work. We have stigmatized staying at home and raising children as a society.

Who is this "we" ? People without kids?

Society, in general.

This is perhaps one of my favorite Bittman quotes. I can't remember it verbatim, but it was essentially lamenting how we have devalued working in your own home. In his case, he was referring to cooking, but I feel the overall point is rather relevant.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#18

Post by Kurtz79 » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:02 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #9

Kurtz79 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I cringe when people say how things are going for the worse constantly.

Sometimes it's because things are objectively worse. Cringing doesn't change the facts. The original claim that we're less violent is easy to debunk, and has been debunked by many people. See e.g. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/john-gray-steven-... But more than that, it's clear that economics and politics have become prime vectors for social violence in the 'developed' West: particularly economics, which…

Thanks for making my point. I live in Spain.

Fifty years ago there was a dictatorship here, people weren't even able to speak their minds freely, without fear for their personal safety.

Castillan language and identity were forced upon Catalans, Galicians an Basques, that hold grudges for that even now.

No longer than ten years ago there were still regular terrorist attacks by ETA, with dozens of innocent victims.

Saying that things are worse now, regardless of the employment rate, it's just idiotic, sorry if I'm being blunt.

In general, the EU, which is seen by some (especially far right and far left parties) as the cause of all evil, has given Europe 70 years of peace, in a continent that has been at war for all of its history.

I'll gladly weather the occasional economic crisis for the privilege.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#19

Post by rayiner » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:07 PM UTC

dzdt wrote: post #7

The last few decades in the US have seen a shift from 1 parent working sufficing to support a family to 2 parents working beening needed for middle class living, and longer hours than before. And more kids have only 1 parent in the household. There simply isn't time for participating in the community-building activities that filled the gaps before. So we are more isolated, and people's lies are in a more fragile bala…

Hours worked per worker is slightly down from 1950: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2812.pdf (Table 1). Inflation-adjusted single earner income is flat since 1950: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cah_slides.pdf, while HHI for two-income households is up over 15%. In summary, people have made the choice to have more money instead of having one parent stay home.

And who can blame them? I love being a parent, but child care is messy, often gross, and physically exhausting. It's blue collar work. Across the economy, people eschew physically-demanding blue collar work for service jobs, even when the former pays more. So it's totally unsurprising that, given the choice, women (or men for that matter) would rather go work, even if most of the money goes to child care, instead of staying home with kids. You don't need to create a false rationalization about the economy forcing both parents to work to explain the labor trends.

Re: Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

#20

Post by wavefunction » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

dzdt wrote: post #7

The last few decades in the US have seen a shift from 1 parent working sufficing to support a family to 2 parents working beening needed for middle class living, and longer hours than before. And more kids have only 1 parent in the household. There simply isn't time for participating in the community-building activities that filled the gaps before. So we are more isolated, and people's lies are in a more fragile bala…

But before that the majority of human history has either both parents or both parents and the children (as they are able) helping out to sustain the family. We need to be sure to survey a long-enough time-line to understand the actual norms and what may have been a relatively small period of recent fortune.