8 ms·

Family structure is actually huge when talking about poverty. First, poverty statistics comparing 1950 to today are more complex than they appear since the mar

Family structure is actually huge when talking about poverty. First, poverty statistics comparing 1950 to today are more complex than they appear since the marriage rate has dropped a lot. There are more single-income households, so the average household income looks different though income might not have changed all that much. Second there is a very strong correlation between marriage rates in neighborhoods and poverty levels in the same neighborhoods. Likewise, there is a very strong correlation between marriages in households with children and poverty rates in those households. Very few households with two working partners live in poverty. It's... complicated to discuss family structure when talking about poverty and child welfare, but it's possible (I would argue likely) that family structure is a key contributor here. In my opinion it's rather foolish not to at least bring it up and consider it.

cokernel 10y ago
This is part of a three-part series of posts, one focused on education, one on work, and one on marriage. The author talks about marriage here: http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-failed-and-unnecessary-cut-poverty http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-fai...
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  His argument here seems particularly weak. He seems to be saying "Scandinavia doesn't have this problem, and anyway, it's really hard to get more people to marry." I don't find that a very compelling argument.
  - hsitz 10y ago
    I think the argument is more along the lines of: (1) We've tried lots of different programs and wasted lots of money and resources trying to promote marriage; all have been failures, we have no idea how to actually promote marriage. (2) It's not necessary to promote marriage to solve the poverty problem. Thus (3) we should forget about the "marriage promotion" programs as part of the fight against poverty; we can deploy our resources better elsewhere.
sharemywin 10y ago
correlation is not causation. Could another likely argument be that poverty creates more stress on a relationship and it's the other way around? poverty causes relationship problems? Also, minimum wage doesn't cover child care, so what's the point in having one partner working when it doesn't make economic sense?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  That's a possible argument but it seems unlikely. If true, then a poor nation like India should have low marriage rates while a super rich one like the US should have high marriage rates. By Indian standards, everyone (including our very poor) is quite wealthy, so why do Indians do such a good job at getting and staying married while we don't? Compare also marriage rates and wealth over time - in the 50's marriage was a lot more common, yet by modern standards most people were poor.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    I doubt one would ever be able to account for all the variables when comparing disparate cultures to try to determine causality on one issue.
    - sharemywin 10y ago
      trading places on a mass scale. Enter into a lotto were you could win all kinds of money or you could lose all your wealth.
  - aeorgnoieang 10y ago
    Two related points: - 'Poverty' is (mostly) relative; as you point out, almost all of the even the poorest in the US are rich in comparison to the poor in other countries; and the poorest in the world today are relatively rich compared to the poor (and even not-poor) in the past. - It is illegal, inconvenient, and low-status to live or try to live, in the US, as the poor in India, or other poorer countries, do; e.g. authorities will evict tenants living in illegal housing (and prosecute their landlords), almost no one brings their small children to work with them, building/labor/etc. standards are much more stringent legally (and culturally).
kdamken 10y ago
I would agree that family structure plays a huge part. Kids are expensive and take a lot of energy. As much as we as a society celebrate single moms, it's a tough gig to work full time and raise your kids alone. I don't think anyone would say it's the ideal family situation. One reason the marriage rate may be is dropping is that it's become fairly disincentivized for men. A lot of younger men (25-35) I know voice concerns like the ones listed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoXQf2f2Yxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoXQf2f2Yxo Perhaps if they were to make marriage and custody laws more fair it would help the rates increase.
- josinalvo 10y ago
  The video cites 'a growing number of men' opting out of marriage (and work, and school). I'd like to see the source to this 'growing number'. Do you happen to know?
  - morgante 10y ago
    The marriage rate is overall declining substantially. [0] It's hard to suss out the exact reasons for why, but one imagines that it's not only women choosing to opt out of marriage (especially since they stand to gain from marriage while structurally men are set up to lose). [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-y...
- randomdata 10y ago
  > One reason the marriage rate may be is dropping is that it's become fairly disincentivized for men. The business relationship is rather pointless, for both sexes, these days. Marriage once existed so that, traditionally, the woman would stay at home to care for the household and children allowing the man to focus on his career. The idea being that the man would do better with help than he could all on his own, thus the woman sharing in the proceeds she helped create. This is why divorce defaults to splitting assets 50/50. Now that men and women are much more apt to work independently – each working both in and out of the home – there is little need to solidify a legal partnership to protect the partner not collecting the income.
jernfrost 10y ago
This is a highly cultural phenomenon those which one can not generalize about. Nordic countries have low level of poverty AND marriage. But Nordic societies are much more accommodating towards such a situation, and so it doesn't cause the significant problems it does in the US. Laws and regulations make it much easier for mothers to have a job and raise kids. In the US the workplace is less accommodating and so many mothers are forced to stay home for years with their kids. This creates an economic disaster if the parents divorce because the mother now has too little work experience to get a good job and there are limited social programs for single mothers. Secondly a factor is the nature behind the split up. Single parent households does not signal family breakdown in the same manner as it does in the US. Fathers are usually very active participants in their children lives even if they are divorced. I think the lesson American are trying to push is that people must be married for the benefit of children, while Nordic countries rather push the idea that every father has to take responsibility and engage with their children. I think one should accept realities of modern societies and find solutions to that rather than dreaming about a 1950s world which is never coming back.
- dharmach 10y ago
  May be Nordic states are more sympathetic to single mothers because of the declining population. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/23/map-where-europe-is-growing-and-where-it-is-shrinking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/23...
  - jernfrost 10y ago
    That is simply not true. Nordic countries have among the highest population growth of the rich countries. Of course sympathy towards single mothers is part of the reason we never got the severe population decline seen in Germany, Italy and Japan e.g. The map you show is hard for anybody who doesn't know anything about settlements pattern in various countries. Nordic nations are experiencing population fall in thinly populated remote areas. Because these are large areas, it looks more dramatic than it is. People are leaving small towns with limited opportunities because they want to live in bigger cities with more variation in opportunities. Mind you limited opportunities doesn't mean there aren't jobs. It just that that young Norwegians and Swedes don't want to work in fishing and mining industry anymore. Often immigrants from eastern europe take over these jobs, saving many small communities from falling apart.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
novaleaf 10y ago
Family structure yes, but I think more about having a social safety net. If your car breaks down, who can give you a ride to work and whatnot.
morgante 10y ago
It's worth reading the follow up on why marriage doesn't combat poverty: http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-failed-and-unnecessary-cut-poverty http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-fai...

cokernel 10y ago

This is part of a three-part series of posts, one focused on education, one on work, and one on marriage. The author talks about marriage here: http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-failed-and-unnecessary-cut-poverty http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-fai...

CWuestefeld 10y ago
His argument here seems particularly weak. He seems to be saying "Scandinavia doesn't have this problem, and anyway, it's really hard to get more people to marry." I don't find that a very compelling argument.
- hsitz 10y ago
  I think the argument is more along the lines of: (1) We've tried lots of different programs and wasted lots of money and resources trying to promote marriage; all have been failures, we have no idea how to actually promote marriage. (2) It's not necessary to promote marriage to solve the poverty problem. Thus (3) we should forget about the "marriage promotion" programs as part of the fight against poverty; we can deploy our resources better elsewhere.

sharemywin 10y ago

correlation is not causation. Could another likely argument be that poverty creates more stress on a relationship and it's the other way around? poverty causes relationship problems? Also, minimum wage doesn't cover child care, so what's the point in having one partner working when it doesn't make economic sense?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
That's a possible argument but it seems unlikely. If true, then a poor nation like India should have low marriage rates while a super rich one like the US should have high marriage rates. By Indian standards, everyone (including our very poor) is quite wealthy, so why do Indians do such a good job at getting and staying married while we don't? Compare also marriage rates and wealth over time - in the 50's marriage was a lot more common, yet by modern standards most people were poor.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  I doubt one would ever be able to account for all the variables when comparing disparate cultures to try to determine causality on one issue.
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    trading places on a mass scale. Enter into a lotto were you could win all kinds of money or you could lose all your wealth.
- aeorgnoieang 10y ago
  Two related points: - 'Poverty' is (mostly) relative; as you point out, almost all of the even the poorest in the US are rich in comparison to the poor in other countries; and the poorest in the world today are relatively rich compared to the poor (and even not-poor) in the past. - It is illegal, inconvenient, and low-status to live or try to live, in the US, as the poor in India, or other poorer countries, do; e.g. authorities will evict tenants living in illegal housing (and prosecute their landlords), almost no one brings their small children to work with them, building/labor/etc. standards are much more stringent legally (and culturally).

kdamken 10y ago

I would agree that family structure plays a huge part. Kids are expensive and take a lot of energy. As much as we as a society celebrate single moms, it's a tough gig to work full time and raise your kids alone. I don't think anyone would say it's the ideal family situation. One reason the marriage rate may be is dropping is that it's become fairly disincentivized for men. A lot of younger men (25-35) I know voice concerns like the ones listed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoXQf2f2Yxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoXQf2f2Yxo Perhaps if they were to make marriage and custody laws more fair it would help the rates increase.

josinalvo 10y ago
The video cites 'a growing number of men' opting out of marriage (and work, and school). I'd like to see the source to this 'growing number'. Do you happen to know?
- morgante 10y ago
  The marriage rate is overall declining substantially. [0] It's hard to suss out the exact reasons for why, but one imagines that it's not only women choosing to opt out of marriage (especially since they stand to gain from marriage while structurally men are set up to lose). [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-y...
randomdata 10y ago
> One reason the marriage rate may be is dropping is that it's become fairly disincentivized for men. The business relationship is rather pointless, for both sexes, these days. Marriage once existed so that, traditionally, the woman would stay at home to care for the household and children allowing the man to focus on his career. The idea being that the man would do better with help than he could all on his own, thus the woman sharing in the proceeds she helped create. This is why divorce defaults to splitting assets 50/50. Now that men and women are much more apt to work independently – each working both in and out of the home – there is little need to solidify a legal partnership to protect the partner not collecting the income.

jernfrost 10y ago

This is a highly cultural phenomenon those which one can not generalize about. Nordic countries have low level of poverty AND marriage. But Nordic societies are much more accommodating towards such a situation, and so it doesn't cause the significant problems it does in the US. Laws and regulations make it much easier for mothers to have a job and raise kids. In the US the workplace is less accommodating and so many mothers are forced to stay home for years with their kids. This creates an economic disaster if the parents divorce because the mother now has too little work experience to get a good job and there are limited social programs for single mothers. Secondly a factor is the nature behind the split up. Single parent households does not signal family breakdown in the same manner as it does in the US. Fathers are usually very active participants in their children lives even if they are divorced. I think the lesson American are trying to push is that people must be married for the benefit of children, while Nordic countries rather push the idea that every father has to take responsibility and engage with their children. I think one should accept realities of modern societies and find solutions to that rather than dreaming about a 1950s world which is never coming back.

dharmach 10y ago
May be Nordic states are more sympathetic to single mothers because of the declining population. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/23/map-where-europe-is-growing-and-where-it-is-shrinking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/23...
- jernfrost 10y ago
  That is simply not true. Nordic countries have among the highest population growth of the rich countries. Of course sympathy towards single mothers is part of the reason we never got the severe population decline seen in Germany, Italy and Japan e.g. The map you show is hard for anybody who doesn't know anything about settlements pattern in various countries. Nordic nations are experiencing population fall in thinly populated remote areas. Because these are large areas, it looks more dramatic than it is. People are leaving small towns with limited opportunities because they want to live in bigger cities with more variation in opportunities. Mind you limited opportunities doesn't mean there aren't jobs. It just that that young Norwegians and Swedes don't want to work in fishing and mining industry anymore. Often immigrants from eastern europe take over these jobs, saving many small communities from falling apart.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

novaleaf 10y ago

Family structure yes, but I think more about having a social safety net. If your car breaks down, who can give you a ride to work and whatnot.

morgante 10y ago

It's worth reading the follow up on why marriage doesn't combat poverty: http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-failed-and-unnecessary-cut-poverty http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-fai...