Live data from Hacker News

The nuclear family isn't working

mattbell.us

1–10 of 53 posts

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#4

The nuclear family does work, in the sense that average outcomes for children raised by their married biological parents are better than for other children.

Is that correlation or causation? I could imagine that the kind of people who make sensible choices about who to marry and are able to hold a marriage together for a long period of time would also happen to be the kind of people who could raise children adequately.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#5

The nuclear family does work, in the sense that average outcomes for children raised by their married biological parents are better than for other children.

Is that correlation or causation? I could imagine that the kind of people who make sensible choices about who to marry and are able to hold a marriage together for a long period of time would also happen to be the kind of people who could raise children adequately.

I could imagine many things.

Like for example being discriminated against throughout your life, first because your parents are the gay weirdos at the corner, and then later because with all your liberal, non-conformist ideas you always strike the wrong chords with people.

Wild imagination, I know.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#7

The nuclear family does work, in the sense that average outcomes for children raised by their married biological parents are better than for other children.

Really? We know this for a fact that the nuclear family is better than extended families or group co-housing arrangements for children?

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#8

The nuclear family does work, in the sense that average outcomes for children raised by their married biological parents are better than for other children.

Is that correlation or causation? I could imagine that the kind of people who make sensible choices about who to marry and are able to hold a marriage together for a long period of time would also happen to be the kind of people who could raise children adequately.

Regardless of whether it is correlation or causation it seems to be an objective observation.

I would also wager having a "better" child of the sort that would have good outcomes also helps hold families together better. If you have a kid that just is downright "broken" somehow in a way that places unusual demands from the parents, it often harms the marriage. That is, perhaps it is also the case the kind of children that have better outcomes tend to place less unusual demands on their parents, allowing the family to continue to bond. A particular violent, psychologically psychopathic child that might be measured as having bad outcomes might also drive the parents apart as family life becomes unbearable.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#9

The nuclear family does work, in the sense that average outcomes for children raised by their married biological parents are better than for other children.

Really? We know this for a fact that the nuclear family is better than extended families or group co-housing arrangements for children?

A nuclear family is a subset of the greater family, so I don't see your point. Having nuclear family plus less direct family members would be included in the nuclear family observation.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#10
The nuclear family used to contribute 5/14 person-days per week to the workforce. Now it contributes 10/14 person-days, which leaves only 4 person-days a week to raise kids, which isn't enough. Birth rate plummets -- who could have seen it coming?

We should use the hours-per-week overtime threshold to control the aggregate supply/demand for labor (this also will require removing exceptions, of course).

Proposal: the overtime threshold should be at 3 days per week. This leaves a nuclear family contributing ~6 days a week to the workforce -- more than it did in the 50s -- while still leaving 8 person-days a week for raising kids.

Objection: but China will catch us if we slack off!

Counter-Objection: China has the same problem but worse, and they have a government that loves big central plans more than ours does. Compromise would be possible if we wanted it.

Objection: but we are ruled by capitalists who will never allow it.

Counter-Objection: yeah, probably. If they do nothing, reduced birth rate will eventually reduce the aggregate supply of labor for them -- but automation will probably land by then, so I doubt they are too worried. We need to put an end to the situation where they profit enormously from mismanaging the situation.

Post reply on HN