3 ms·

And further incentivize divorce? It's a dual-headed problem. Much of what has fueled the breakdown of family structure are policies that incentivize women to be

by codexb 3y ago

And further incentivize divorce? It's a dual-headed problem. Much of what has fueled the breakdown of family structure are policies that incentivize women to become single mothers. Children being raised by single mothers is not a good outcome. We need to stop pretending that it is.

ajmurmann 3y ago
No, just do UBI or a version of UBI that's only for kids. That way you get rid of the harmful step function we always pack into social programs.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> And further incentivize divorce? One way to give them more money and not incentivize single parenthood (which is the issue, not divorce, and treating them as equivalent has always been wrong and is increasingly so as marriage rates drops) is to go to UBI instead of means-tested aid, or, if using means testing, use a means-testing formula which doesn't punish two-parent families. > Children being raised by single mothers is not a good outcome. Its a lot better than children being raised by two parents together, one of which is abusing them and/or the other parent, which any change which does more to avoid incentivizing divorce or single-parenthood more than eliminating any two-parent penalty would incentivize, especially for the poor.
- codexb 3y ago
  > UBI UBI still incentivizes divorce. It offers unconditional financial support to single mothers. > Abuse We're talking about no-fault divorces. Divorce, with cause, has always been legal -- abuse, neglect, abandonment, sterility, addiction -- there have always been ways to deal with these issues. More than half of all children will be raised in divorced households. The idea that 50% of fathers are abusing the children is absurd. There is a very clear lack of awareness on how severe each of these issues are. Yes, abuse by parents
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > UBI still incentivizes divorce. It offers unconditional financial support to single mothers. No, it is neutral on divorce, because the support is unconditional. > More than half of all children will be raised in divorced households. Will be... when? And where's the evidence? The entire increase in single-mother families from the 1970s to 2019 was driven by the increase in parents who never married, not an increase in divorce-with-children. [0] > The idea that 50% of fathers are abusing the children is absurd. No one said that all divorce was due to abuse, but its interesting that aside from your invented numbers and inventing the claim of universality, you also changed divorce involving abuse of the other partner or a child to being exclusively about fathers and exclusively about abusing children. [0] https://ifstudies.org/blog/children-first-why-family-structure-and-stability-matter-for-children#:~:text=This%20trend%20was%20entirely%20driven,to%2018%20percent%20in%202019 https://ifstudies.org/blog/children-first-why-family-structu....
    - codexb 3y ago
      > No, it is neutral on divorce, because the support is unconditional. Any government support subsidizes divorce. You are ignoring the fact that in the default state, without UBI (or government assistance), divorce would be naturally disincentivized because of the added financial burden on the caretaker. It substitutes the government as the provider instead of the father. It's precisely what the entire article is about. > No one said that all divorce was due to abuse You used it as a red herring to claim that divorce shouldn't be disincentivized. The fact that there are valid cases for divorce doesn't negate that fact that even in those cases there should be massive disincentives against it and that the overwhelming majority of divorces today likely should not be allowed because there is no valid reason for them. There's a lack of awareness about how destructive broken households and families are to children and society.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        The fact that there are valid cases for divorce doesn't negate that fact that even in those cases there should be massive disincentives against it and that the overwhelming majority of divorces today likely should not be allowed because there is no valid reason for them. There's a lack of awareness about how destructive broken households and families are to children and society. uhm, what? either there is a valid case for divorce or there isn't. you can't have it both ways. if there is a valid case for divorce then absolutely nothing should stand in the way. preventing divorce on its own does not help fix broken households. i do agree that as a socety we should do everything in our power to fix broken households. and by doing that, divorces will be reduced. but this is not done by disincentivizing divorce. it is done by removing the things that are the cause for the household to break. "Money arguments are the second leading cause of divorce, behind infidelity" the infidelity issue is addressed by better education (teach children that when they get married, their responsibility is to take care of each other (and teach them how to do that)) and the money issue is addressed by financial support for parents. it doesn't have to be UBI, but it should be to make sure that couples have enough money to live and raise children. in germany this is achieved by guaranteeing an existence minimum, and by unconditional extra money of around 200euro per child. disincentivizing divorce by not financially supporting the single parent is a very bad idea because it forces them to remain in an abusive relationship.
ryanwaggoner 3y ago
Given that most women do worse financially after divorce, I’m curious about these incentives for women to become single mothers that you’re talking about.
- codexb 3y ago
  I'm talking specifically about the US. I don't know how divorces are treated in other countries. In the US, many states have family court systems with statutory and/or systemic biases against fathers. Mothers are typically given majority custody of the children and deference when it comes to making decisions about the children. Single mothers often qualify for government assistance that they wouldn't qualify for as a married woman. Tax credits and deductions are awarded to the parent with majority custody (which is typically women). Fathers typically contribute more to the financial assets of the marriage, yet are typically lucky to receive 50% of marital assets in a divorce. Men typically have higher long-term earnings than women in the US (for reasons that aren't discriminatory), and courts typically award the lower earning spouse some percentage of the higher-earning spouses future income in a divorce (even when there aren't children). When it comes to paying for costs related to raising children (school tuition, sports, fees, medical costs), the higher earning spouse is typically ordered to pay a higher proportion of the costs (like 60-70%).
  - ryanwaggoner 3y ago
    Some of that is false, but not all of it. And some of it is misleading. For example, women usually get more custody, but that’s also because men often don’t seek custody. Men who seek custody are awarded it at similar rates as women, IIRC. It’s also not true that men are “lucky” to get 50% of the assets. That’s the default position in community property states. And it still doesn’t explain how women are incentivized to divorce, given that despite some of the things above, women still fare worse in divorce than men do. Child support and alimony are, on average, something like softens the blow for the lower-earning spouse, not a path to a higher standard of living than was enjoyed in the marriage. FWIW, I’m divorced and pay child support and the lion’s share of kid expenses, including school tuition. And yet I wouldn’t trade my financial position for my ex’s. This is true for almost every divorced man I know, and I know a lot at this point.

by codexb 3y ago

ajmurmann 3y ago

No, just do UBI or a version of UBI that's only for kids. That way you get rid of the harmful step function we always pack into social programs.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> And further incentivize divorce? One way to give them more money and not incentivize single parenthood (which is the issue, not divorce, and treating them as equivalent has always been wrong and is increasingly so as marriage rates drops) is to go to UBI instead of means-tested aid, or, if using means testing, use a means-testing formula which doesn't punish two-parent families. > Children being raised by single mothers is not a good outcome. Its a lot better than children being raised by two parents together, one of which is abusing them and/or the other parent, which any change which does more to avoid incentivizing divorce or single-parenthood more than eliminating any two-parent penalty would incentivize, especially for the poor.

codexb 3y ago
> UBI UBI still incentivizes divorce. It offers unconditional financial support to single mothers. > Abuse We're talking about no-fault divorces. Divorce, with cause, has always been legal -- abuse, neglect, abandonment, sterility, addiction -- there have always been ways to deal with these issues. More than half of all children will be raised in divorced households. The idea that 50% of fathers are abusing the children is absurd. There is a very clear lack of awareness on how severe each of these issues are. Yes, abuse by parents
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > UBI still incentivizes divorce. It offers unconditional financial support to single mothers. No, it is neutral on divorce, because the support is unconditional. > More than half of all children will be raised in divorced households. Will be... when? And where's the evidence? The entire increase in single-mother families from the 1970s to 2019 was driven by the increase in parents who never married, not an increase in divorce-with-children. [0] > The idea that 50% of fathers are abusing the children is absurd. No one said that all divorce was due to abuse, but its interesting that aside from your invented numbers and inventing the claim of universality, you also changed divorce involving abuse of the other partner or a child to being exclusively about fathers and exclusively about abusing children. [0] https://ifstudies.org/blog/children-first-why-family-structure-and-stability-matter-for-children#:~:text=This%20trend%20was%20entirely%20driven,to%2018%20percent%20in%202019 https://ifstudies.org/blog/children-first-why-family-structu....
  - codexb 3y ago
    > No, it is neutral on divorce, because the support is unconditional. Any government support subsidizes divorce. You are ignoring the fact that in the default state, without UBI (or government assistance), divorce would be naturally disincentivized because of the added financial burden on the caretaker. It substitutes the government as the provider instead of the father. It's precisely what the entire article is about. > No one said that all divorce was due to abuse You used it as a red herring to claim that divorce shouldn't be disincentivized. The fact that there are valid cases for divorce doesn't negate that fact that even in those cases there should be massive disincentives against it and that the overwhelming majority of divorces today likely should not be allowed because there is no valid reason for them. There's a lack of awareness about how destructive broken households and families are to children and society.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      The fact that there are valid cases for divorce doesn't negate that fact that even in those cases there should be massive disincentives against it and that the overwhelming majority of divorces today likely should not be allowed because there is no valid reason for them. There's a lack of awareness about how destructive broken households and families are to children and society. uhm, what? either there is a valid case for divorce or there isn't. you can't have it both ways. if there is a valid case for divorce then absolutely nothing should stand in the way. preventing divorce on its own does not help fix broken households. i do agree that as a socety we should do everything in our power to fix broken households. and by doing that, divorces will be reduced. but this is not done by disincentivizing divorce. it is done by removing the things that are the cause for the household to break. "Money arguments are the second leading cause of divorce, behind infidelity" the infidelity issue is addressed by better education (teach children that when they get married, their responsibility is to take care of each other (and teach them how to do that)) and the money issue is addressed by financial support for parents. it doesn't have to be UBI, but it should be to make sure that couples have enough money to live and raise children. in germany this is achieved by guaranteeing an existence minimum, and by unconditional extra money of around 200euro per child. disincentivizing divorce by not financially supporting the single parent is a very bad idea because it forces them to remain in an abusive relationship.

ryanwaggoner 3y ago

Given that most women do worse financially after divorce, I’m curious about these incentives for women to become single mothers that you’re talking about.

codexb 3y ago
I'm talking specifically about the US. I don't know how divorces are treated in other countries. In the US, many states have family court systems with statutory and/or systemic biases against fathers. Mothers are typically given majority custody of the children and deference when it comes to making decisions about the children. Single mothers often qualify for government assistance that they wouldn't qualify for as a married woman. Tax credits and deductions are awarded to the parent with majority custody (which is typically women). Fathers typically contribute more to the financial assets of the marriage, yet are typically lucky to receive 50% of marital assets in a divorce. Men typically have higher long-term earnings than women in the US (for reasons that aren't discriminatory), and courts typically award the lower earning spouse some percentage of the higher-earning spouses future income in a divorce (even when there aren't children). When it comes to paying for costs related to raising children (school tuition, sports, fees, medical costs), the higher earning spouse is typically ordered to pay a higher proportion of the costs (like 60-70%).
- ryanwaggoner 3y ago
  Some of that is false, but not all of it. And some of it is misleading. For example, women usually get more custody, but that’s also because men often don’t seek custody. Men who seek custody are awarded it at similar rates as women, IIRC. It’s also not true that men are “lucky” to get 50% of the assets. That’s the default position in community property states. And it still doesn’t explain how women are incentivized to divorce, given that despite some of the things above, women still fare worse in divorce than men do. Child support and alimony are, on average, something like softens the blow for the lower-earning spouse, not a path to a higher standard of living than was enjoyed in the marriage. FWIW, I’m divorced and pay child support and the lion’s share of kid expenses, including school tuition. And yet I wouldn’t trade my financial position for my ex’s. This is true for almost every divorced man I know, and I know a lot at this point.