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

31–40 of 291 posts

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#31

Post by doingwellthanks »

version_five wrote: post #27
matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

Western society peaked in the 80s so maybe we should listen to some of the arguments from back then.

Peaked for whom exactly?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#32

Post by mbfg »

version_five wrote: post #27
matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

Western society peaked in the 80s so maybe we should listen to some of the arguments from back then.

based on what metric?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#33

Post by giantg2 »

ConfusedDog wrote: post #4
michaelleland wrote: post #2

The tax credits for married people here in the US seem to be part of this type of policy, no?

Being single parent can also file for the deduction. Receiving supposal and child support after tax also encourages divorce, which also encourages the benefiting party not to go to work or do works that doesn't pay taxes. I'd say the current policy is more encouraging of divorce than two-parent household.

Unless someone is severely disabled, spousal support is a horrible thing. Even worse are the states that make it compulsory after a certain number of years.

Child support makes sense in theory, but is butchered in practice. The judgements often have little to do with how much it actually costs to support the child and is more about a percentage of income.

Let's not forget, the state is the third party in a divorce. They do not want to support anyone when they can force one of the other parties to do so.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#34

Post by ajmurmann »

version_five wrote: post #27
matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

Western society peaked in the 80s so maybe we should listen to some of the arguments from back then.

"Western society peaked in the 80s"

By what metric?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#35

Post by mortureb »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

The current paradigm doesn’t work so maybe the “70s” had it right. Our kids are more depressed than ever, the parents have been run haggard due to wage declines with women joining the workforce, care of our kids is outsourced to daycares, archaic child support laws essentially end up putting men into defacto slavery for decades, no fault divorces are inherently unfair etc.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#36

Post by [deleted] »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

[deleted]

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#37

Post by gregorymichael »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #23

The 1970s called; they'd like their arguments back! Arguing that children with married parents fare better, thus promoting two-parent families, is akin to suggesting that since blue cars have fewer accidents, everyone should drive a blue car. Pressuring dissatisfied couples to stay together or marry benefits no one. The article fails to provide actionable recommendations on promoting marriage.

So, let's prioritize helping folks have happy/healthy relationships?

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#38

Post by Dig1t »

>The scholar to whom the question was directed looked annoyed and struggled to formulate an answer. The panelists shifted in their seats. The moderator stepped in, quickly pointing out that poverty makes it harder for people to form stable marriages. She promptly called on someone else.

If we valued free speech more, we might be able to have more open, honest conversations in the public realm here.

In a society where people are easily fired, or have their lives disrupted in other ways, for expressing the wrong opinion or saying the wrong thing, there is no upside to having this conversation. The only rational decision is to ignore the question and move on.

The fewer conversations we have, the less likely we are to be able to solve problems.

Re: Two-parent households should be a policy goal

#39

Post by lokar »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21
pjc50 wrote: post #8

Can't read the article even with archive.ph, but do they have an analysis of why relationships break down?

> the idea is that as some men have become less reliable as financial providers for their family, the value proposition of marriage between a man and a woman has fallen. > Multiple studies document a causal link between the economic struggles of men and the growth in single-mother families. > To give disadvantaged children better futures, policy makers should promote widespread employment and economic security among…

Perhaps as women have gained more financial independence they no longer need to adopt a submissive attitude towards men to survive?
Post reply on HN