Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

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

#41

Post by harryh »

foobarqux wrote: post #39
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> In summary, people have made the choice to have more money instead of having one parent stay home. Not really, disposable income has gone down, savings have gone down, while health insurance and mortgage payments (for roughly equivalent housing) have gone up. It looks like having two earners is more out of necessity than preference for the middle class.

Median house size has increase DRAMATICALLY over the past 50 years.

https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

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

#42

Post by foobarqux »

harryh wrote: post #41
foobarqux wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In summary, people have made the choice to have more money instead of having one parent stay home. Not really, disposable income has gone down, savings have gone down, while health insurance and mortgage payments (for roughly equivalent housing) have gone up. It looks like having two earners is more out of necessity than preference for the middle class.

Median house size has increase DRAMATICALLY over the past 50 years. https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

I was citing mortgage costs for equivalent sized housing.

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

#43

Post by ChrisLomont »

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…

Average annual hours actually worked per worker has decreased over the past few decades, not increased [0,1]. Household size is decreasing as well [2], lowering the percent of households with multiple workers.

[0] http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

[1] http://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

[2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html

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

#44

Post by me1010 »

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 agree. If you have more than one child, one parent's salary will go directly and entirely to pay for child care. It's also likely that one parent will need to work fewer hours and be available to drop off / pick up / emergency pick up the kids at day care -- which means at least one parent will need to be partially not working or at least not advancing in his/her career.

However, raising kids is very difficult and emotionally draining. Personally, I feel parental involvement is much more important than whatever might have been called a middle class lifestyle.

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

#45

Post by harryh »

foobarqux wrote: post #42
harryh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median house size has increase DRAMATICALLY over the past 50 years. https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

I was citing mortgage costs for equivalent sized housing.

Is that actually up on an inflation adjusted basis?

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

#47

Post by littletimmy »

The key to well functioning kids is involved parents.

The key to involved parents is less time spent working.

Americans need to get over their fetish for hard work and start staying home more. Or just stop having kids altogether and use work as the primary source of joy.

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

#48

Post by meric »

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…

Well, in those days you couldn't be divorced that easily, so it was more viable to be a stay-at-home mum.

California was the first U.S. state to adopt what are now called 'no-fault' divorces in the United States in 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

Post reply on HN