dagblog - Comments for "Marriage Is Not An Anti-Poverty Program"

agreed, looks at marriage as

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 20:46:48 +0000

agreed, looks at marriage as a piece of easy-apply sticky paper, rather than the end of one process and the beginning of another. Perhaps "parenting relationships" is a more apt phrase?

I think the problem in

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:54:51 +0000

In reply to If I went to buy a house

I think the problem in thinking through these things is that we tend to focus on one or two--or just one--variable as if that were the key.

I don't think any sane person could argue that single parenting is better--all other things being equal--than double parenting. Or even, in some ways, parenting within the bosom of an extended family or village. Is MM really arguing this?

But this is not an insight lost on liberals, nor is it new. Reducing teen pregnancy has looong been a goal of any number of programs, including the one my wife worked for. Become a teen mother, and your chances of remaining in poverty are much higher.

Teens are the folks we're talking about, not the woman who has looked but been unable to find a suitable partner, wants to have kids, and sees her time running out. I've known a number of these women, often professionals, and they have done fine, though it's been harder for them than it would have been with partner (though, perhaps, not just any partner).

The problem I have with prescribing marriage as a cure for poverty is that it overlooks all the causal antecedents leading up to pregnancies by unwed teenagers. It's almost like saying "If you want to stay out of poverty, make sure you make money."

If I went to buy a house

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:53:46 +0000

In reply to Marriage Is Not An Anti-Poverty Program

If I went to buy a house without a job, the bank would turn me down.

Having kids without proper resources is natural (often kids inspire us to earn more, and we learn by doing), but making the job more difficult through single parenting is bad policy on the whole.

I don't know what Russ Douhat is saying, and don't want to get into it, but public overall self-destructive behavior of putting itself into poverty over kids should be countered in some fashion. Affordable health care is one way of doing it, but really, by being a single parent you've increased your chance of staying poor dramatically.

But we have this PC outlook like "Either way, I tend to assume that people have their reasons for deciding who to marry and when." Uh yeah, people have a lot of smart reasons and dumb reasons, and often with a little nudging we can get them going in a healthier direction. People have their reasons for living on twinkies as well, and we see some 300-pound Goliaths - just say "it's their choice"?

Here's just a handful of non-Douhat links that describe the situation of single parenting, including the drastic toll on certain demographic groups. You can try all the anti-povery measures you want, but if you suddenly take away half or more of the income and the daily manually support required to raise kids, you've dramatically increased the chance of failure. Of course Irish and Sicilian families traditionally raised a dozen kids, so 3 kids and a job may be equivalent. Just didn't think that hard lifestyle was our social goal in 2014. Any liberals want to step up with an enlightened policy to get more partners (don't care if married, but helps if they're committed) raising kids?

[note: causes work in a number of ways - entrenched unemployment is more likely to cause fathers to abandon families, and we can have social safety nets that actually function to serve the current situation where women aren't trapped in abusive relationships or other awful situations, but at the same time, it is fairly obvious that parenting is a hell of a lot easier and likely for success with 2 - or more? - parents. You can augment that in different ways, but at least doing something to help the situation would be sane - find 3 solutions, implement, and call me in the morning.]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-mysterious-and-alarming-rise-of-single-parenthood-in-america/279203/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/single-motherhood-increases-census-report_n_3195455.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in/

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/867,133,38,35,18/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431

The bellwether for

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:30:37 +0000

In reply to Marriage Is Not An Anti-Poverty Program

The bellwether for conservative thinking on these matters is Charles Murray.

Here's the Amazon blurb for his latest book: Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010.

(I might have called it: Hells Bells! White Folks are Getting As Bad As Negroes! --but I digress.)

"In Coming Apart, Charles Murray explores the formation of American classes that are different in kind from anything we have ever known, focusing on whites as a way of driving home the fact that the trends he describes do not break along lines of race or ethnicity.

Drawing on five decades of statistics and research, Coming Apart demonstrates that a new upper class and a new lower class have diverged so far in core behaviors and values that they barely recognize their underlying American kinship—divergence that has nothing to do with income inequality and that has grown during good economic times and bad.

The top and bottom of white America increasingly live in different cultures, Murray argues, with the powerful upper class living in enclaves surrounded by their own kind, ignorant about life in mainstream America, and the lower class suffering from erosions of family and community life that strike at the heart of the pursuit of happiness. That divergence puts the success of the American project at risk.

The evidence in Coming Apart is about white America. Its message is about all of America."

Is it just me or does the phrase "they barely recognize their underlying American kinship" swerve at the last moment before it says "their underlying racial kinship"? One copywriter wrote the telling subhead: What's Wrong With White People? Why don't they want to work anymore?

In this book, Murray also argues that one reason poor whites are poor is that they don't get married and don't stay married. They also don't go to church. And a few other things. Upper-class whites do all these and, Murray writes, they should insist that lower class whites do the same. They should preach what they practice and help fellow white folks get a leg up.

Apart from all the problems with Murray's work(s), it may be true that successful people tend to be married and raise a family, but is that why they're successful? Or is marriage and family-raising just what successful people tend to do in part because they have the wherewithal to do it and the wherewithal to ward off the pressures that often split people up? Big economic jolts are well-known marriage wreckers. And are there other reasons, like the disappearance of unions and declining wages, that push working class people of all races down the success ladder.

It seems conservatives will grasp at any straw to keep from having to examine the economic straw and the various laws and policies that move our economy in certain directions and twist it into certain shapes. That way lies government...though I'm not sure it would have to.

How about promoting marriage

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:21:01 +0000

In reply to Marriage Is Not An Anti-Poverty Program

How about promoting marriage by reducing poverty? That wouldn't allow people to feel morally superior to the poor, but it might work.

Stable household incomes promote stable families. And people who can afford to get married are more likely to get and stay married.

The poor are somewhat less likely, statistically, to be in a long-term stable marriage. They are also much less likely to own a new car. But lack of a new car isn't the primary cause of poverty, either.

Good article. It illustrates

Tim Danahey — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:53:39 +0000

In reply to Marriage Is Not An Anti-Poverty Program

Good article. It illustrates the monetized thinking overwhelming logic in the world of Paul Ryan and his adherents. Is every action to be measured by how much it is taxed? At some point, their thinking is just plain weird. If a Republican woman was unhappily married to an abusive Republican man, she's supposed to consider the tax consequences or the..., oh yes, the children?

I was just watching Jesse

Richard Day — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:11:28 +0000

In reply to I remember Jesse Ventura

I was just watching Jesse this morning whilst he traveled on his motorcycle to Area 51.

He was not as bad of a governor as a repub might have been when he reigned; but damn is he nuts.

I just recall when Bush gave billionaires millions and the middle class enough money for toaster overns.

Well, Jesse decided to give our 'overage' to everybody in the form of a credit for the purchase of toaster ovens. hahahahah

Whateverthe hell millionaires in Minnesota purchased with $300 is beyond me.

And his Minnesota accent always makes me laugh. hahahaha

LIVING WAGES

Things are better in Minnesota with a standard good dem from a rich family by the name of Dayton!

FOREVER!

I remember Jesse Ventura

Aaron Carine — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:47:00 +0000

In reply to Marriage Is Not An Anti-Poverty Program

I remember Jesse Ventura telling a bunch of mothers on welfare that they were to blame for being poor because they shouldn't have become single parents. Possible answers would be 1) people shouldn't be required to marry or to never get divorced. 2) mothers can't compel the fathers of their children into marriage, and it isn't the mother's fault if she gets stiffed on child support. 3) people, whether they are married or single, deserve to be paid a living wage for their work, and the market often doesn't provide that.

Presumably the Republican answer to this would be "it's not our problem".