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

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#241

Post by mortureb »

RestlessMind wrote: post #183
mortureb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spousal support is an archaic holdover that doesn’t belong anymore and child support should not be a thing offered in at fault divorces. For the latter I’m not sure how you can go about implementing that ethically though. If the dad cheated, fine, he should pay child support. If the mom cheats, maybe the state can subsidize daycare while the mom is forced to work. Otherwise there are no consequences for the mom who c…

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. Draconian laws tilting in favor of women definitely contribute to reluctance of men to get married or to have kids.

It’s going to be downvoted for a few years while the true state of things permeates through the society. It’s just a matter of constantly educating the 10,000 new people that learned about it today.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#242

Post by mortureb »

ahf8Aithaex7Nai wrote: post #184
mortureb wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a hard argument to make if completely alienated populations, irrespective of geographical location, coalesce around the same idea.

I don't think that's the case. And I don't think you're an anthropologist or anything. It's just a convenient narrative when it fits into your own view. Polyandry was and is widespread in some cultures. I wonder if you would accept that as a state of nature.

A handful of cultures exist where polyandry is practiced, mostly contemporarily as a side effect of a paucity of women, and the woman is treated as a shared property amongst the men who also sleep with other women at the same time (North Eastern India, parts of Thailand, a couple of Native American tribes)

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#243

Post by RestlessMind »

dublinben wrote: post #232
RestlessMind wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think WFH-RTO dimension is orthogonal to unchecked corporate culture. You can have a great work-life balance with RTO (I saw it at Google first-hand in 2010's) and you can have a shitty dawn-to-dusk grinder with WFH (saw it many times since Covid.

Tech companies wouldn't be offering their employees who are too busy to start families the perk of egg freezing if they offered "great work-life balance." They would be offering more flexible part-time work, so that employees could both have children and continue working, instead of putting off having children.

Companies with great work-life balance still offer egg freezing. It is simply an option to the female employees who want to work a lot and postpone childbearing. Having that option doesn't mean other employees don't have a great WLB if they want to go for that.

Case in point - Google (first hand experience).

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#244

Post by User23 »

giantg2 wrote: post #150
User23 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state also gets a 10% rake off the top, which is why child support judgments are so enthusiastically enforced.

Is that the court fee or something else?

It's not a flat percentage exactly and it varies by state[1]. I'm not sure how I got 10% in my head maybe that's roughly the average?

[1] https://calmatters.org/projects/california-keeps-millions-in...

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#245

Post by marssaxman »

mortureb wrote: post #240
marssaxman wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A person overlooking 5-15 kids is never going to be able to offer the care a one on one relationship with a mother can. Some mothers have 5-15 kids!

Most, and I mean 93%+ of Americans don’t and that’s just for the lower bound of 5 kids. It’s 0.002% at 15.

I am well aware that it is uncommon, coming as I do from a family of eleven children; but the world is much more than America, and birth control is a recent invention. I don't see how you can reasonably claim that one person cannot care for such a number of children when mothers of large families have been doing it for millenia.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#246

Post by mortureb »

marssaxman wrote: post #245
mortureb wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most, and I mean 93%+ of Americans don’t and that’s just for the lower bound of 5 kids. It’s 0.002% at 15.

I am well aware that it is uncommon, coming as I do from a family of eleven children; but the world is much more than America, and birth control is a recent invention. I don't see how you can reasonably claim that one person cannot care for such a number of children when mothers of large families have been doing it for millenia.

It’s never at the same time and older siblings help with the younger ones which is still an infinitely better situation than some low paid employee watching 15 kids at the same time.

Also that time has passed. All of Asia including south and south east are basically at replacement rate. Africa averages higher but not by a whole lot more and that number is dropping quickly.

There’s a reason women from wealthy families never work and dedicate all their time to raising kids.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#247

Post by DoreenMichele »

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…

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.

One possible (partial) explanation: If there is enough insurance/benefits to cover the bills after dad's death, mom is usually the primary childcare provider. So if dad's role is primarily as provider, his loss can be substantially mitigated with money.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#248

Post by ryanwaggoner »

codexb wrote: post #235
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that most women do worse financially after divorce, I’m curious about these incentives for women to become single mothers that you’re talking about.

I'm talking specifically about the US. I don't know how divorces are treated in other countries. In the US, many states have family court systems with statutory and/or systemic biases against fathers. Mothers are typically given majority custody of the children and deference when it comes to making decisions about the children. Single mothers often qualify for government assistance that they wouldn't qualify for as a…

Some of that is false, but not all of it. And some of it is misleading.

For example, women usually get more custody, but that’s also because men often don’t seek custody. Men who seek custody are awarded it at similar rates as women, IIRC.

It’s also not true that men are “lucky” to get 50% of the assets. That’s the default position in community property states.

And it still doesn’t explain how women are incentivized to divorce, given that despite some of the things above, women still fare worse in divorce than men do. Child support and alimony are, on average, something like softens the blow for the lower-earning spouse, not a path to a higher standard of living than was enjoyed in the marriage.

FWIW, I’m divorced and pay child support and the lion’s share of kid expenses, including school tuition. And yet I wouldn’t trade my financial position for my ex’s. This is true for almost every divorced man I know, and I know a lot at this point.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#249

Post by anon291 »

_greim_ wrote: post #179
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.

I've thought about this a lot. My personal theory is that when young leave their home communities to seek opportunity elsewhere, that experience changes them. Afterward, to the extent they return, they rejuvenate their community. To the extent they don't, the community stagnates. The reality in the US is mostly the latter. This also created a self-perpetuating cycle, since who wants to go back to their stagnant littl…

Japan has a 'hometown' tax. Forget exactly how this works but you're tied to the town / area you grew up in for life.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#250

Post by anon291 »

mcphage wrote: post #180
anon291 wrote: post #66

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. Moreover, it's not necessary to force everyone in the same house. My parents and inlaws are within 20 minutes. It's great and since they are both married and happy, there's little family stress and the kids get ample time with both grandparents. God forbid, if anything were to happen…

> Moreover, it's not necessary to force everyone in the same house. My parents and inlaws are within 20 minutes. I'm in a similar position, and it's been a lifesaver. When our first child was ~6 months old, my wife had a gallstone attack at 11:30 at night, and my parents were able to be there in minutes, so we could get to the ER without waking our daughter up and bringing to her to a hospital in the middle of the ni…

Yeah... my parents moved to us when we moved to a place we could afford housing. And this is what I mean by 'nuclear families beget extended families'. If you have a close family, they will want to be together. My parents knew we could never live where we grew up. Thus, they made plans to follow us as (1) we are a young family and I (the sole breadwinner) needs to be in a place where I can work and buy a house and (2) they are older and have made their money and are more adaptable. As it stands, most people can do this because most parents are having two children. My brother moved to another area, but his wife's family (and hers is much bigger than ours... layer upon layer of nuclear families to back them up) is there, so as it stands, we are both well covered by family.
Post reply on HN