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

The nuclear family isn't working

mattbell.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#21

Post by prohobo »

notch656a wrote: post #14
prohobo wrote: post #6

Aren't we way past that? Yes, a nuclear family does worse than a full family (as in multiple generations living together). Can we stop diagnosing the problem ad nauseum? We get it.

Might depend. If you have grandparents that help I would guess the kid would do better. If the grandparents have bad medical issues that place a large burden on the parents, then the kids would probably get less attention and be better off if the grandparents were figuratively placed in the garbage bin. But I would wager on average you're correct, and I'd be interested in seeing some of the data to confirm it.

There is no data because no one studied it, at least from what I've read.

We're pretty sure that multigenerational households lead to less loneliness and less strictly individualistic people than nuclear families, but it's hard to prove it without a proper study.

EDIT: Dealing with ailing grandparents is a very situational problem, but I think that effects nuclear families just as much.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#22

Post by biomcgary »

notch656a wrote: post #14
prohobo wrote: post #6

Aren't we way past that? Yes, a nuclear family does worse than a full family (as in multiple generations living together). Can we stop diagnosing the problem ad nauseum? We get it.

Might depend. If you have grandparents that help I would guess the kid would do better. If the grandparents have bad medical issues that place a large burden on the parents, then the kids would probably get less attention and be better off if the grandparents were figuratively placed in the garbage bin. But I would wager on average you're correct, and I'd be interested in seeing some of the data to confirm it.

One of the problems with boomer grandparents is that their average expectations around helping with childcare (i.e., minimal) are quite different than grandparents of the past. Due to the ongoing drop in incomes, boomers (and gen Xers) are more likely to be financially supporting their gen x (and millenial) kids than vice versa, which means they are less willing to "earn their way" with childcare.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#23

Post by notch656a »

gleenn wrote: post #15

Something which my parents have a hard time grasping: we're at one of the first times in American history where children are doing less off financially then there parents. My parents met in the 70's where my dad was making a killing as a professional. He easily purchased a large house and got married and had two kids. Even with a FAANG job, I struggle to find any reasonable place to continue my career in a place wher…

If you want a wife and kids working remote and a cheap place to live go to the third world (Philippines is good) and find somebody who wants a half-white kid and will sponsor your residence visa. You can live on like 5% of your salary and you're not going to have trouble starting family or finding a wife. Please don't pick the first bar girl you meet, maybe volunteer in a rural area or something.

Bring on the hate HN. Source: married to south east Asian foreign national.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#24

Post by biomcgary »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #13
EddieDante wrote: post #3

It works for the ruling class. That it doesn't work for the ruled is of no concern to your masters.

This seems like delusion unless you can connect it more directly to the question at hand, or explain the mechanism by which the nuclear family is forced upon the “ruled”. Or otherwise provide an alternative, ideal structure to replace the nuclear family.

It isn't too much of a stretch given the article. Real wages have been dropping for decades. If current wages returned to the amounts of the past, when the nuclear family was the norm, the ruling class profits would drop instead.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#25

Post by smeej »

The title of this article seems to have little to do with its contents.

There is commentary about the involvement of men and women in the workforce over time, but nothing about the outcomes for various family members on metrics that matter to them. There isn't even an obvious definition of "nuclear family" in the article.

What would "working" even mean to this author?

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#26

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

notch656a wrote: post #20
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so there's a confusion in regards to terminology. My understanding is that a nuclear family and a multigenerational family aren't the same thing. From Wikipedia: "A nuclear family, elementary family or conjugal family is a family group consisting of parents and their children (one or more), typically living in one home residence. It is in contrast to a single-parent family, the larger extended family, or a family…

Search the dictionary for "subset." The nuclear family is a subset of larger families; if 3 generations live together the nuclear family is still present. ------- RE: >With that approach then all nuclear families contain subset single-parent and childless families as well. Yes, now you understand. Someone saying nuclear families do well is not saying extended families do worse. Your premise is completely a straw man.…

With that approach then all nuclear families contain subset single-parent and childless families as well.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#27

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

notch656a wrote: post #20
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so there's a confusion in regards to terminology. My understanding is that a nuclear family and a multigenerational family aren't the same thing. From Wikipedia: "A nuclear family, elementary family or conjugal family is a family group consisting of parents and their children (one or more), typically living in one home residence. It is in contrast to a single-parent family, the larger extended family, or a family…

Search the dictionary for "subset." The nuclear family is a subset of larger families; if 3 generations live together the nuclear family is still present. ------- RE: >With that approach then all nuclear families contain subset single-parent and childless families as well. Yes, now you understand. Someone saying nuclear families do well is not saying extended families do worse. Your premise is completely a straw man.…

OK, you're replying weird, but let's go with this....

> Yes, now you understand. Someone saying nuclear families do well is not saying extended families do worse.

I mean, I reject that logic, but my initial question was do nuclear families do better than extended families? If we go with this "subset" argument and nuclear families are the best because they are a subset of extended families, then the best outcomes for children are single orphaned people without children because they are subsets of every family.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#28

Post by DonnyV »

Some good ideas in this article but you lost me at ... "Rising healthcare costs are due to misaligned incentives between patients, doctors, pharma companies, and insurance companies that make healthcare spending inefficient and often ineffective, as well as an overly burdensome FDA approval process that increases the cost of drug development, makes it easier for pharma companies to price-gouge, and encourages corruption."

Health insurance should be done at the Fed level, period. Thats how every other country does it. We can have our own version. It also saves money, instead of hording profits for some Insurance Companies CEO to buy a 2nd yacht.

There are no pricing regulations on any drugs and thats the problem. Also if you believe in capitalism so much then we should be able to buy our drugs from anywhere in the world. Just like we do our food.

The solution of families just doubling up is just dumb. Housing is expensive because real estate is artificially scarce. Real estate ghouls pay off local politicians to not expand zones or have zoning changed. Also some people just don't want to live with their parents. We want to raise our children our way without repeating the errors of the past. Also some grandparents can't help because of medical issues or just don't want to. This idea of forcing people into large families or groups to survive just sounds like trying to squeeze blood from a stone without fixing the problem thats causing this.

Also big surprise this article never mentions how the elites cause all of these problems. They control the zoning for housing, they control what gets passed in Congress to budget for Universal Healthcare, they control if prices should be regulated by paying off politicians, they control minimum wage rates, etc etc

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#29

Post by adamesque »

alar44 wrote: post #17
gleenn wrote: post #15

Something which my parents have a hard time grasping: we're at one of the first times in American history where children are doing less off financially then there parents. My parents met in the 70's where my dad was making a killing as a professional. He easily purchased a large house and got married and had two kids. Even with a FAANG job, I struggle to find any reasonable place to continue my career in a place wher…

I just can't have any sympathy for people who move to the most expensive places in the world and complain they're expensive. Get a different job elsewhere and you'll live like a fucking king if you have FAANG chops. Plenty of excellent places to live in the US that aren't SF, NYC, or LA.

Parent says that California is their home state. Some people are okay with leaving home but many, many people like to stay close, even if that happens to be a HCOL place.

I dunno, a little sympathy goes a long way.

Re: The nuclear family isn't working

#30

Post by EddieDante »

biomcgary wrote: post #24
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like delusion unless you can connect it more directly to the question at hand, or explain the mechanism by which the nuclear family is forced upon the “ruled”. Or otherwise provide an alternative, ideal structure to replace the nuclear family.

It isn't too much of a stretch given the article. Real wages have been dropping for decades. If current wages returned to the amounts of the past, when the nuclear family was the norm, the ruling class profits would drop instead.

Likewise, if family farms, businesses, and trades were still viable corporations would have to pay more to lure people into working for them.
Post reply on HN