4 ms·

> I’m using “third world country” as a generic reference to low standard of living. Um, ok, here's a tip: if you want to be understood, maybe try using words l

by lapcat 4y ago

> I’m using “third world country” as a generic reference to low standard of living. Um, ok, here's a tip: if you want to be understood, maybe try using words like everyone else uses them, instead of repurposing existing words with your own private definitions? > That makes it impossible to develop government and rule of law. [You seem to have deleted this sentence in editing.] In other words, we're doing a lot right, otherwise we wouldn't attract so many immigrants, and thus our culture isn't as bad as it's portrayed by, ironically, immigrants. > That individualist streak has always been latent in American culture, but it’s most apparent in Appalachia. I... am speechless. I don't know how to respond to this, at least without saying something that will get me downvoted or flagged. So I guess our conversation may be over. > For example, even 100 years ago Appalachians had higher rates of multiple marriages than the rest of the country From your own linked article: "Whether this was due to divorce or higher mortality, I can’t say". Also: "Even with these higher divorce rates, the share of Appalachian women currently married is nonetheless higher than women in the rest of the US." Your article doesn't even show what you seem to want it to show. > There were lots of German immigrants in Appalachia, but they didn’t build the place the way they did the Midwest. I'm a lifelong Midwesterner. There's a very strong, deep rooted progressive streak in the Midwest, for example in Wisconsin and Minnesota, notably, which both have large populations of German ancestry. Frankly, your comments seem to be imbued with with overgeneralization and stereotypes. A major reason why divorce rates have increased in the past 50+ years is that over this time period, women have achieved a great deal of financial independence from men. They don't have to be married anymore. They have more choices, can be more selective. This is, I would say, good. I don't want to go back to a past where women were subservient.

rayiner 4y ago
> Um, ok, here's a tip: if you want to be understood, maybe try using words like everyone else uses them, instead of repurposing existing words with your own private definitions? Referring to the law standard of living is the common usage of the term "third world country." Nobody is referring to alignment vis-a-vis NATO and the USSR. > In other words, we're doing a lot right, otherwise we wouldn't attract so many immigrants, and thus our culture isn't as bad as it's portrayed by, ironically, immigrants. We immigrated to the America of Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The country is still riding the inertia of that. Moreover, immigrants are generally insulated from the larger culture. Affluent, educated immigrants can count on joining the top quantile, where as the article observes marriage norms remain strong. And whether affluent or not, immigrants have their own communities with their own social structures. Rampant divorce in Oregon doesn't affect Bangladeshis in Queens. > I'm a lifelong Midwesterner. There's a very strong, deep rooted progressive streak in the Midwest, for example in Wisconsin and Minnesota, notably, which both have large populations of German ancestry. Yes, but it's mainly a collectivist form of economic progressivism. As we saw with 2012-2016 shifts, when cultural issues predominate, the alignment runs in the other direction. > A major reason why divorce rates have increased in the past 50+ years is that over this time period, women have achieved a great deal of financial independence from men. Except the women who have the most potential for independence have the highest marriage rates. The marriage rate of people in the top quantile is the same today as it was in 1979: https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-declining-and-likely-deepening-inequality/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-.... Marriage rates for women with a bachelor's degree were pretty close to those without a high school disagree in 1968: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/19/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08.... Today, marriage rates in the former group have dropped about 10 percentage points, but have been stable since the mid 1980s. (If you account for the fact that way more people have bachelors degrees today, there might not be much real change at all.) Meanwhile, marriage rates for the other groups have dropped 20-30 points and are still declining. The data supports an alternative hypothesis. Social norms around marriage and taboos against divorce function as guard-rails that encourage normal people to do something that's good for them--getting and staying married. High-IQ, high impulse control people (the folks who go to college and end up in the top 20%) don't need those social guard rails, and have done fine without them. That is consistent with other social trends too--for example, college educated people are far less likely to be obese than everyone else.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Nobody is referring to alignment vis-a-vis NATO and the USSR. You actually said you were were from a third world country in an earlier comment, though you deleted that bit soon thereafter. Regardless, the point you still seem to be avoiding is that the US does much better economically than many other countries (whatever you want to call them), so there seems to be no empirical support for the idea that the cultures of those other countries are superior economically to the US culture, or that the current US culture will somehow result in a low standard of living. > We immigrated to the America of Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The country is still riding the inertia of that. I understand that you don't approve of the social changes that started in the 1960s, but it's now more than 50 years since the 1960s, so where is the economic doom, the low standard of living, that you suppose is caused by these social changes? When exactly do you predict that to happen? It appears to me that "still riding the inertia" is a convenient way of shrugging off the lack of empirical support for your belief. I see that you've now dropped your discussion of Appalachia, which is probably for the best, because the equation of that with 1960s social changes has always seemed totally bizarre and nonsensical to me. > Yes, but it's mainly a collectivist form of economic progressivism. So you claim. I guess it's necessary for you to spin it that way to support your other beliefs. > As we saw with 2012-2016 shifts, when cultural issues predominate, the alignment runs in the other direction. I'm not sure what you mean by "shifts" or "alignment". I'd have to guess you're referring to elections, which are often decided by razor thin margins, then wrongly interpreted as significant cultural shifts. > Except the women who have the most potential for independence have the highest marriage rates. That's rather easy to explain: those at the top have the best selection of potential mates! Moreover, those at the top are much less likely to experience the kind of financial crises that can put a great strain on a marriage. The wealthy always had financial independence. That's why nothing much has changed at the top. Now non-wealthy women have a lot more financial independence too. There's been no cultural rejection of the institution of marriage. After all, as another commenter here astutely noted, there wouldn't have been such a massive battle over gay marriage if we didn't care about marriage. The point of divorce is to get out of a bad marriage, which is much more possible now than before. Also, people have more freedom now to delay marriage until they're ready for it, when they feel the timing is good. Some people prefer singlehood, even later in life, but they're the minority. > do something that's good for them--getting and staying married. I disagree that this is necessarily good for them. I don't want to recite my personal life on HN, but let's just say that I wish my parents had divorced a lot sooner than they did. And now they're much happier divorced than they were married, and I'm also happier as a result. If anything, the problem is that people get married too easily, and too young.

by lapcat 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

> Um, ok, here's a tip: if you want to be understood, maybe try using words like everyone else uses them, instead of repurposing existing words with your own private definitions? Referring to the law standard of living is the common usage of the term "third world country." Nobody is referring to alignment vis-a-vis NATO and the USSR. > In other words, we're doing a lot right, otherwise we wouldn't attract so many immigrants, and thus our culture isn't as bad as it's portrayed by, ironically, immigrants. We immigrated to the America of Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The country is still riding the inertia of that. Moreover, immigrants are generally insulated from the larger culture. Affluent, educated immigrants can count on joining the top quantile, where as the article observes marriage norms remain strong. And whether affluent or not, immigrants have their own communities with their own social structures. Rampant divorce in Oregon doesn't affect Bangladeshis in Queens. > I'm a lifelong Midwesterner. There's a very strong, deep rooted progressive streak in the Midwest, for example in Wisconsin and Minnesota, notably, which both have large populations of German ancestry. Yes, but it's mainly a collectivist form of economic progressivism. As we saw with 2012-2016 shifts, when cultural issues predominate, the alignment runs in the other direction. > A major reason why divorce rates have increased in the past 50+ years is that over this time period, women have achieved a great deal of financial independence from men. Except the women who have the most potential for independence have the highest marriage rates. The marriage rate of people in the top quantile is the same today as it was in 1979: https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-declining-and-likely-deepening-inequality/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-.... Marriage rates for women with a bachelor's degree were pretty close to those without a high school disagree in 1968: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/19/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08.... Today, marriage rates in the former group have dropped about 10 percentage points, but have been stable since the mid 1980s. (If you account for the fact that way more people have bachelors degrees today, there might not be much real change at all.) Meanwhile, marriage rates for the other groups have dropped 20-30 points and are still declining. The data supports an alternative hypothesis. Social norms around marriage and taboos against divorce function as guard-rails that encourage normal people to do something that's good for them--getting and staying married. High-IQ, high impulse control people (the folks who go to college and end up in the top 20%) don't need those social guard rails, and have done fine without them. That is consistent with other social trends too--for example, college educated people are far less likely to be obese than everyone else.

lapcat 4y ago
> Nobody is referring to alignment vis-a-vis NATO and the USSR. You actually said you were were from a third world country in an earlier comment, though you deleted that bit soon thereafter. Regardless, the point you still seem to be avoiding is that the US does much better economically than many other countries (whatever you want to call them), so there seems to be no empirical support for the idea that the cultures of those other countries are superior economically to the US culture, or that the current US culture will somehow result in a low standard of living. > We immigrated to the America of Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The country is still riding the inertia of that. I understand that you don't approve of the social changes that started in the 1960s, but it's now more than 50 years since the 1960s, so where is the economic doom, the low standard of living, that you suppose is caused by these social changes? When exactly do you predict that to happen? It appears to me that "still riding the inertia" is a convenient way of shrugging off the lack of empirical support for your belief. I see that you've now dropped your discussion of Appalachia, which is probably for the best, because the equation of that with 1960s social changes has always seemed totally bizarre and nonsensical to me. > Yes, but it's mainly a collectivist form of economic progressivism. So you claim. I guess it's necessary for you to spin it that way to support your other beliefs. > As we saw with 2012-2016 shifts, when cultural issues predominate, the alignment runs in the other direction. I'm not sure what you mean by "shifts" or "alignment". I'd have to guess you're referring to elections, which are often decided by razor thin margins, then wrongly interpreted as significant cultural shifts. > Except the women who have the most potential for independence have the highest marriage rates. That's rather easy to explain: those at the top have the best selection of potential mates! Moreover, those at the top are much less likely to experience the kind of financial crises that can put a great strain on a marriage. The wealthy always had financial independence. That's why nothing much has changed at the top. Now non-wealthy women have a lot more financial independence too. There's been no cultural rejection of the institution of marriage. After all, as another commenter here astutely noted, there wouldn't have been such a massive battle over gay marriage if we didn't care about marriage. The point of divorce is to get out of a bad marriage, which is much more possible now than before. Also, people have more freedom now to delay marriage until they're ready for it, when they feel the timing is good. Some people prefer singlehood, even later in life, but they're the minority. > do something that's good for them--getting and staying married. I disagree that this is necessarily good for them. I don't want to recite my personal life on HN, but let's just say that I wish my parents had divorced a lot sooner than they did. And now they're much happier divorced than they were married, and I'm also happier as a result. If anything, the problem is that people get married too easily, and too young.