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

#21

Post by wavefunction » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

gress wrote: post #12

saturdaysaint wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Th…

Well children were also being beaten and abused 50 years and previous to that. Let's not act like everything was homogenous in one regard or another in different time periods.

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

#22

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:21 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #20

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.

> 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.

For most of that history, much of that "helping out to sustain the family" did not mean "working in wage labor".

In two parent homes of, say, the 1950s with one parent working outside the home, the other one was also engaged in work to "sustain the family", it just wasn't work for an outside capitalist that sustained the family through a paycheck.

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

#23

Post by paganel » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:21 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #8

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…

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.

I'd say is a net positive for society that women nowadays are more financially independent compared to the 1960s-1970s. Consider it this way, you're a stay-at-home mom who has decided to focus on her kids in her later 20s, and then you're 40 and divorce happens.

In the happy case your ex-husband and father to your kids still pays for their education and food and relared stuff, but what about you and your own financial needs? Now that you've been out of the work-force for 10+ years you're basically unemployable.

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

#24

Post by wavefunction » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:29 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #22

wavefunction wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. For most of that history, much of that "helping out to sustain the family" did not mean "working in wage labor". In two parent homes of, say, the 1950s with one parent working outside the home, the other one was also engaged in work to "sustain the family", it…

Indeed, I'm saying the period of the 1950s up until recently was an _anomaly_ that allowed one parent to work for wages while the other stayed at home to manage the home while the children had relatively little responsibility compared to thousands of years previous.

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

#25

Post by jonathantm » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:30 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?

"We" is not a who, but rather a "what" - namely, a useful indication of poor thinking.

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

#26

Post by Domenic_S » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #23

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.

I'd say is a net positive for society that women nowadays are more financially independent compared to the 1960s-1970s. Consider it this way, you're a stay-at-home mom who has decided to focus on her kids in her later 20s, and then you're 40 and divorce happens. In the happy case your ex-husband and father to your kids still pays for their education and food and relared stuff, but what about you and your own financia…

> then you're 40 and divorce happens

Magic happens here?

> what about you and your own financial needs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony

Regardless, there is a sneaky equivocation of women in the workplace & two-income households. Obviously women, as fellow humans, do and should have the choice to work outside the home if they want. But IMO one parent should stay home. Is it any surprise that it takes the salary of two people to buy an average house? Things just get more expensive to take advantage of the increased income, and the net result is we spend more time working. Not a net positive.

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

#27

Post by bilbo0s » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #23

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.

I'd say is a net positive for society that women nowadays are more financially independent compared to the 1960s-1970s. Consider it this way, you're a stay-at-home mom who has decided to focus on her kids in her later 20s, and then you're 40 and divorce happens. In the happy case your ex-husband and father to your kids still pays for their education and food and relared stuff, but what about you and your own financia…

???

Those are net positives for divorcing males and females. Which is what it should be. Why should "society" be benefiting???

I think the real issue here... is that we want "society" to benefit from interpersonal relationships. A benefit to "society" is fine if it happens, and sometimes it might happen, but mostly it won't. And that's OK... I don't believe benefiting "society" should be the goal of interpersonal relationships.

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

#28

Post by Torgo » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #20

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.

Yet some people here think it would be feasible to skip completely over one working parent all the way to no working parent, via guaranteed income. I personally think it's not, but I can see how it's appealing since it sidesteps the fear that a single worker household would cause a reversal of women's liberation, without appearing to be in favor of equality of suffering under wage work.

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

#29

Post by ThrustVectoring » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:44 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.

That drop may have more to do with removing lead from gasoline than any social changes.

Biological factors are staggeringly huge.

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

#30

Post by ZeroFries » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #23

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.

I'd say is a net positive for society that women nowadays are more financially independent compared to the 1960s-1970s. Consider it this way, you're a stay-at-home mom who has decided to focus on her kids in her later 20s, and then you're 40 and divorce happens. In the happy case your ex-husband and father to your kids still pays for their education and food and relared stuff, but what about you and your own financia…

I would think that the best solution is both parents work 20-25 hours per week. Less money spent on child care, more time spent with children, spreads the burden of both work and raising children across both parents, and quite frankly would make life more interesting. I'd definitely prefer working less and spending more time with my kids if I had them.