5 ms·

Encourage how? Force unhappy couples together? You think that is good for the children?!

by matthewfelgate 3y ago

avmich 3y ago
Money promote happiness, so having more money could be a subgoal. This is a rough description, of course.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cmcaleer 3y ago
    The baffling part here is you reading things that aren't there. Let's read the two comments you replied to: - Nothing better than a father and mother in a stable, loving relationship for a child. Yes, let’s encourage this. - Money promote happiness, so having more money could be a subgoal. This is a rough description, of course. Where is the suggestion to force couples who don't work together to stay together for the kid? Money stress causes a huge number of couples to split. If these couples could be financially supported and have a happy, healthy relationship they may not have otherwise had if they had to deal with financial stress of childcare expenses, what's bad about that? Nobody - not the writer in this article, not the comments you're replying to - is suggesting paying unhappy couples to stay together.
    - matthewfelgate 3y ago
      I see lots of people saying "Encourage this" I see no actual solutions.
cmcaleer 3y ago
Sure, I guess that's one of the most uncharitable ways you could read it. A more charitable and common sense way to read it would be to reduce stressors on couples with children, a huge one being childcare arrangement and expenses. Especially so if granny and granda aren't around or capable of helping. Tax credits, stuff like that goes a long way.
- lokar 3y ago
  Providing free/cheap high quality child care is something we should be doing regardless of the number and gender of the parents.
ryanklee 3y ago
> Encourage how? By creating evidence-based policies that support and encourage nucleic families through education and counseling at accessible institutions for potential and actual family members.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Gobbledygook.
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    Which part of it? Get evidence around how to support and encourage these structures. Figure out how to provide access to those mechanisms. Put it into policy. With all due respect, none of that is gobbledygook and it's just rephrased.
    - matthewfelgate 3y ago
      More gobbledegook. Saying "lets get evidence and make things better" isn't a solution. It's gobbledegook.
      - ryanklee 3y ago
        If you put money into reseach into a certain subject, you will learn things about that subject. What you learn can and should inform policy. This is not nonsense. This one of the key mechanisms behind good policy. If you are pointing out that this story requires more detail to be useful for specific applications, I don't disagree. But this is in response to a comment which appears to be so narrow as to think the only option is to pay people to remain married, so given the context, my response is coherent, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.
        matthewfelgate 3y ago
        So you have nothing but platitudes. At least you admit it now.
mortureb 3y ago
Yes. In many cases taking away the power from a parent can force them to “behave” in a way that provides an overall better outcome for the child.
hackeraccount 3y ago
Unhappy? People are unhappy all the time. I'm sure the vast majority of people who've been married - with or without kids - has at one time or another (maybe even for extended periods of time) been unhappy enough to wonder about someone else or no one at all. Kids are fun and all but they are on some level a sacrifice. You give up part of your soul for them. At the end of the day you should expect them to walk out the door not needing you at all and count yourself lucky if they say thank you. There's no one (or there shouldn't be anyone) who can force people to stay together. That said, they should stay together. I mean, I think they should stay together if they don't have kids because they made a commitment and who wants to look in the mirror in the morning seeing someone who doesn't honor that but if you have children that should be double.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  We don't live in the 1970s any more. Divorce is legal.

Encourage how? Force unhappy couples together? You think that is good for the children?!

avmich 3y ago

Money promote happiness, so having more money could be a subgoal. This is a rough description, of course.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
[flagged]
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  The baffling part here is you reading things that aren't there. Let's read the two comments you replied to: - Nothing better than a father and mother in a stable, loving relationship for a child. Yes, let’s encourage this. - Money promote happiness, so having more money could be a subgoal. This is a rough description, of course. Where is the suggestion to force couples who don't work together to stay together for the kid? Money stress causes a huge number of couples to split. If these couples could be financially supported and have a happy, healthy relationship they may not have otherwise had if they had to deal with financial stress of childcare expenses, what's bad about that? Nobody - not the writer in this article, not the comments you're replying to - is suggesting paying unhappy couples to stay together.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    I see lots of people saying "Encourage this" I see no actual solutions.

cmcaleer 3y ago

Sure, I guess that's one of the most uncharitable ways you could read it. A more charitable and common sense way to read it would be to reduce stressors on couples with children, a huge one being childcare arrangement and expenses. Especially so if granny and granda aren't around or capable of helping. Tax credits, stuff like that goes a long way.

lokar 3y ago
Providing free/cheap high quality child care is something we should be doing regardless of the number and gender of the parents.

ryanklee 3y ago

> Encourage how? By creating evidence-based policies that support and encourage nucleic families through education and counseling at accessible institutions for potential and actual family members.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
Gobbledygook.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  Which part of it? Get evidence around how to support and encourage these structures. Figure out how to provide access to those mechanisms. Put it into policy. With all due respect, none of that is gobbledygook and it's just rephrased.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    More gobbledegook. Saying "lets get evidence and make things better" isn't a solution. It's gobbledegook.
    - ryanklee 3y ago
      If you put money into reseach into a certain subject, you will learn things about that subject. What you learn can and should inform policy. This is not nonsense. This one of the key mechanisms behind good policy. If you are pointing out that this story requires more detail to be useful for specific applications, I don't disagree. But this is in response to a comment which appears to be so narrow as to think the only option is to pay people to remain married, so given the context, my response is coherent, reasonable, and makes perfect sense.
      - matthewfelgate 3y ago
        So you have nothing but platitudes. At least you admit it now.

mortureb 3y ago

Yes. In many cases taking away the power from a parent can force them to “behave” in a way that provides an overall better outcome for the child.

hackeraccount 3y ago

Unhappy? People are unhappy all the time. I'm sure the vast majority of people who've been married - with or without kids - has at one time or another (maybe even for extended periods of time) been unhappy enough to wonder about someone else or no one at all. Kids are fun and all but they are on some level a sacrifice. You give up part of your soul for them. At the end of the day you should expect them to walk out the door not needing you at all and count yourself lucky if they say thank you. There's no one (or there shouldn't be anyone) who can force people to stay together. That said, they should stay together. I mean, I think they should stay together if they don't have kids because they made a commitment and who wants to look in the mirror in the morning seeing someone who doesn't honor that but if you have children that should be double.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
We don't live in the 1970s any more. Divorce is legal.