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

Two-parent households should be a policy goal

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 291 posts

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#201

Post by slowmovintarget »

ajmurmann wrote: post #49
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #12

There was an excellent NYT article about this as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/opinion/single-parent-pov... > We are often reluctant to acknowledge one of the significant drivers of child poverty — the widespread breakdown of family — for fear that to do so would be patronizing or racist.

If we are concerned about poverty, maybe we could just give them money? I understand the fairly small child tax credit had a huge positive impact on child poverty.

We're not just concerned about poverty. We're concerned about outcomes. Stable two-parent families regardless of income are better predictors of higher earnings for the children later in life.

The money has to go toward producing the outcome, and since the likely causes of the positive outcomes are values-based[1], just giving money doesn't cut it. At least, that's what the economic evidence appears to show.

[1] Values-based: Values meaning attitudes toward hard-work, sacrifice, self-control, and especially education. These values have nothing to do with gender roles, race, or ethnicity.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#202

Post by em-bee »

aidenn0 wrote: post #148
anon291 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose I should revise my comment to mean that I don't think living together is a necessity. Just in close proximity. Moreover I know many who do live close to parents and seem estranged due to broken families/mom and dad can't stand to be in the same room, etc

I was able to infer that from your original comment, but the point is that neither my sister nor I can reach my parents in a single day of driving[1], and my wife can't reach her in-laws in a single day of driving. My in-laws are very close now, but at this point we are caring for them more than they are caring for our kids. 1: I'm considering a full day of driving as 12 hours here. Different people tend to disagree…

i see your 1000+ miles and i give you 4000+ miles.

the question is, why is that? you said it yourself, you had one good job offer. what do we need to change that you would get better job offers at home?

in china the culture is that a young couple moves in with the husbands parents who often prepare/build their house with that in mind. (in simple terms, the master bedroom is for the couple, the grandparents move to a smaller room). the grandparents help take care of the grandchildren, and later the children take care of their parents.

but even there this is breaking apart. young people move across the country to get good jobs. sometimes the parents follow them. or they leave the children with the grandparents, sometimes not seeing them and their own children more than once a year.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#203

Post by ahf8Aithaex7Nai »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #195
ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know these are just fringe cases?

The numbers are aggregates and they give us the answers for the general case.

I don't see any numbers, just assertions and strange comparisons.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#204

Post by a_f »

fasthands9 wrote: post #68

I can't read the whole article but remember learning in the past that children of widows have outcomes more similar to two-parent households than divorced parent households. This would seem to suggest the divorce is more of a signal of family/status than something which is driving bad outcomes. At the same time, I do think people have gone a bit too far in their want to not give anyone shame. Yes - some shame is not…

Could it be that a widow might inherit some of the remaining assets of the deceased, whereas in a divorce the assets are split?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#205

Post by giantg2 »

morkalork wrote: post #110
digging wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A multi generational household occurs naturally when grandma and grandpa had a stable two parent households and now mom and dad do too. More importantly, young people need a reason not to move hundreds or thousands of miles away from their stable household. Investing in community resources, local economies, and infrastructure that promotes health and opportunity are all necessary.

WFH solves this too. RTO policies are anti-family. Hell, unchecked corporate work culture is part of why Japan and Korea's birth rates are so low. Can't be out having babies if you're at the office at all hours.

Even here in the US is tough. I have a "good" job as a developer. My wife still has to work to support a middle class lifestyle and make a median household income. She has to work my off-hours. Doesn't feel like that much of a family when we don't do family activities or have family meals. No wonder others don't want this sort of "good" life. The single guys I know are doing so much better financially and overall. Risk of financial ruin in divorcebor child support is a major factor in the US as well. Why take on that risk? If the environment is hostile, it's no wonder marriage declines, birth rate declines, etc.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#206

Post by bluefirebrand »

digging wrote: post #172
vorpalhex wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels extremely unusual to me to specifically call out a mother/father relationship if they weren't intending to exclude queer relationships When most relationships are hetero, just calling out hetero pairing as a proxy is.. perfectly fair. That's not some kind of secret exclusionary dogwhistle just to use common language. If parents are almost always a man and a woman and you say "kids with a mom and a dad"...…

Hard disagree. Saying "two parents" is faster and easier than saying "a mom and a dad". Listeners can fill in the gaps with their own biases; the speaker doesn't need to. Anyway, I'm not the one failing to communicate usefully here. Did you actually read the original comment? It has no meaningful content. It is just a more verbose way of saying less than the title of the article -- unless you read it literally, in wh…

Every child on the planet is guaranteed to have a male parent and a female parent.

I'm not aware of any ways to create a child without that.

Call them a "sperm maker" and an "egg haver" if it makes you feel better but that's reality.

Encouraging both of those people to take on the role of mother and father and parent together isn't some crazy, outlandish idea.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#207

Post by fasthands9 »

peteradio wrote: post #176
fasthands9 wrote: post #68

I can't read the whole article but remember learning in the past that children of widows have outcomes more similar to two-parent households than divorced parent households. This would seem to suggest the divorce is more of a signal of family/status than something which is driving bad outcomes. At the same time, I do think people have gone a bit too far in their want to not give anyone shame. Yes - some shame is not…

Shame could be the active ingredient in poorer outcomes of children of divorce, I'm not sure casting it more broadly will help the general picture.

I agree shame does not help once you are divorce, but there is some envelope math which seems fair.

If divorce makes outcomes 10% worse but makes divorce with children 20% less likely, maybe it's a wash?

At the very least, it seems incorrect to insist to me the downsides of shame always outweighs the benefits from it. Even if putting numbers on it is kinda farcical, but I think the point still stands.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#208

Post by dragonwriter »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #199
dragonwriter wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The side seeking additional discrimination as a policy goal has the burden of evidence supporting the discrimination, not the side supporting the absence of discrimination. That's not just a good rule of thumb, its a Constitutional rule in the US (though the standard to meet varies depending on the kind of discrimination from a very low standard—the rational basis test—to a very high standard—strict scrutiny.)

Not sure how you got from "let's encourage fathers and mothers to stay together to raise children with better outcomes" to "seeking discrimination as a policy goal" That's quite a stretch honestly.

> Not sure how you got from "let's encourage fathers and mothers to stay together to raise children with better outcomes" to "seeking discrimination as a policy goal"

Whether it's primarily by gender composition or by biological relationship, what you are proposing is strictly additional discrimination over the alternative you asked to be justified of supporting two-parent families generally and without discrimination among them.

As such, you should bear the burden of supporting that additional discrimination as desirable, rather than your interlocutor bearing the burden of justifying its absence as desirable.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#209

Post by ryanwaggoner »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #199
dragonwriter wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The side seeking additional discrimination as a policy goal has the burden of evidence supporting the discrimination, not the side supporting the absence of discrimination. That's not just a good rule of thumb, its a Constitutional rule in the US (though the standard to meet varies depending on the kind of discrimination from a very low standard—the rational basis test—to a very high standard—strict scrutiny.)

Not sure how you got from "let's encourage fathers and mothers to stay together to raise children with better outcomes" to "seeking discrimination as a policy goal" That's quite a stretch honestly.

You're commenting on a thread about a claim that what's "best" is for children to have a father and a mother, not "let's encourage fathers and mothers to stay together", which is quite different.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#210

Post by tkahnoski »

brightball wrote: post #200
fasthands9 wrote: post #68

I can't read the whole article but remember learning in the past that children of widows have outcomes more similar to two-parent households than divorced parent households. This would seem to suggest the divorce is more of a signal of family/status than something which is driving bad outcomes. At the same time, I do think people have gone a bit too far in their want to not give anyone shame. Yes - some shame is not…

There could be a lot of contributors to that. A child of a widow will deal with grief but hopefully move forward together as a family. Potentially even trying to honor their fathers memory in the process. A child of a divorce is likely to deal with anger, instability from custody agreements, custody battles, emotional fights and manipulation between parents, new relationships on both sides and the changes that come w…

It's self-selecting. If the relationship was not in a healthy state to begin with, divorce doesn't fix that dysfunction. It's full admission the relationship between two people isn't something both parties can come together and resolve. The fact that there are any "healthy" divorces amazes me.

We can easily see the population of divorced families, it's much harder for us to shine a light on "should be divorced but aren't". I have a hard time believing kids with a dysfunctional parent relationship at home would be better off.

Post reply on HN