Why Family Values Are Economic Values

[DBTrek]

What if those much maligned "family values" that have fallen so out of fashion c.2017 actually served as successful predictors of economic success? That would flip things around, a bit, eh? There might be reasons beyond the oft cited "bigotry" for people to promote "old fashioned" and antiquated ideals like marriage before children, a strong nuclear family, and education.

What if Major Causes of Poverty Are Behavioral?

. . . The success sequence, previously suggested in research by, among others, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, is this: First get at least a high-school diploma, then get a job, then get married, and only then have children. Wang and Wilcox, focusing on millennials ages 28 to 34, the oldest members of the nation’s largest generation, have found that only 3 percent who follow this sequence are poor.

A comparably stunning 55 percent of this age cohort have had children before marriage. Only 25 percent of the youngest baby boomers (those born between 1957 and 1964) did that. Eighty-six percent of the Wang-Wilcox millennials who put “marriage before the baby carriage” have family incomes in the middle or top third of incomes. Forty-seven percent who did not follow the sequence are in the bottom third. . . .

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... e-followed

Contrast that with the African American community where:

A staggering number of African-American children are raised in single parent homes, compared to the rest of America, and the rest of the world. A study conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 25.8 percent of American children are raised by a single parent, a number high above the 14.9 percent average seen in the other 26 countries surveyed. Among African-Americans the rate nearly tripled, with 72 percent of black children relying on a single parent.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/12/23/ ... ent-homes/

Taking this into consideration, does it make more sense to focus like a laser beam on issues of race and racism, or might it be wiser to consider if our policies are subsidizing (and thereby encouraging) the destruction of the nuclear family, particularly in certain communities?

Yeah, yeah, I know a bunch of you noobs will be like "You're just seeing this now?!?!", and of course, I'm not. But I'm doing that renegade thing where someone actually posts topics and content in a board that has been largely surrendered to shitposting and misanthropy. I like to go against the grain.

[Martin Hash]

I suspect it's not "family values" so much as routine. A nuclear family has a strict routine, as do all the other traditional societal constructs. Chaos breeds chaos.

[MilSpecs]

Taking this into consideration, does it make more sense to focus like a laser beam on issues of race and racism, or might it be wiser to consider if our policies are subsidizing (and thereby encouraging) the destruction of the nuclear family, particularly in certain communities?

The two are linked. From the initial destruction of black nuclear families via forcible removal right through to today's forcible removal of black men from their families, our society has done pretty much everything it can to prevent the formation of black nuclear families. It's going to take a long, long time to repair the damage, but a couple of things that could help:

-financial incentives. Social workers used to go into the projects to search out women whose partners were living with them - it wasn't allowed. They couldn't get married because they'd lose their homes. Subsidizing black families would eventually phase out, but for now we need to do everything possible to encourage the formation of the black nuclear family.

-stop forcibly removing black men from their families for crap reasons. Decriminalize minor drug offenses, 'loitering' type offenses, etc., because they can lead to incarceration for no good reason.

-All of the most visible elements of black society (especially celebrities) should be joined in promoting marriage before children. Procreating with multiple partners should be socially unacceptable.

Just a few ideas.

[Speaker to Animals]

You have to address divorce and the alienation of fathers from their children.

[MilSpecs]

This is about the black family and marriage. It's been awhile since divorced fathers didn't routinely get visitation with their children or joint custody, your experience notwithstanding. My experience is different. My father is sitting downstairs and my parents have been divorced for over 35 years, so not alienated here.

[Speaker to Animals]

This is about the black family and marriage. It's been awhile since divorced fathers didn't routinely get visitation with their children or joint custody, your experience notwithstanding. My experience is different. My father is sitting downstairs and my parents have been divorced for over 35 years, so not alienated here.

Well, that's total billshit.

[C-Mag]

What if those much maligned "family values" that have fallen so out of fashion c.2017 actually served as successful predictors of economic success? That would flip things around, a bit, eh? There might be reasons beyond the oft cited "bigotry" for people to promote "old fashioned" and antiquated ideals like marriage before children, a strong nuclear family, and education.

You mean give a shit about something other than your own short term personal gratification?


I can see how that might lead to success.

[DBTrek]

Seems like all the above goals could be furthered by simply subsidizing nuclear families. Incentivize the behaviors you want to see. If education -> marriage -> children results in considerably more economic success, then push that model instead of trying to subsidize the fallout from that model.

Even in the case of divorce and child custody, give parents an economic reason to consider giving marriage another go (not with the same partner, obviously). If failing a marriage leads people to bankruptcy and ruin, then you've already dis-incentivized marriage. If more government money can be acquired through single parent households, then marriage and family are dis-incentivized. To rehash what the article pointed out:

• Wang and Wilcox, focusing on millennials ages 28 to 34, the oldest members of the nation’s largest generation, have found that only 3 percent who follow this sequence are poor.

The pattern keeps 97% of millennials out of poverty. How does that success rate stack up against current and long running government programs?
It seems like an idea worth a try.

[C-Mag]

The secret to success in marriage is having strong common goals with your wife. If you and your bride don't both have some foundation beliefs and goals, you're probably fucked. Money and shiny cars are not foundation belief either.

Have baby while your a baby is, you're fucked. Decades ago people were often more an adult at 15 than men and women will ever be today, so having and raising a family in your teens was quite different. Young people could handle the responsibility. Few young people in the last 50 years have proven they can handle it.

DB, you make a good point. The path to reducing the welfare state and increasing economic independence could only be aided by nation wide policies that support traditional family values.

[SuburbanFarmer]

More likely that poverty determines behavior, than the reverse.... But don't let me stop your signalling - that plumage is magnificent.