8 ms·

U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households (2019)

yieldcrv 3y ago
Interesting how closely the UK shares our value system, based on these stats I wonder if Canada would be the same without the indigenous cultural and French influence
kevinh 3y ago
Seemingly mostly due to extended family homes being rare here, as that doesn't count as single-parent in this way of measuring. Single parent USA: 23% Single parent world: 7% Extended family USA: 8% Extended family world: 38%
- anon291 3y ago
  Regardless of how you slice it... an extended family household has multiple adults. That means the US leads the world in children being raised with only one adult around. EDIT: Also, to be clear, an extended family household means that mom and dad could still be around, so it says nothing of a household with only either mom or dad (most likely mom, according to the article).
- kamikaz1k 3y ago
  I can't see why single parent has a bridge to extended family. Single Parenthood is about parents splitting, extended family is about mutually supporting generations. Anecdotally, I know quite a few extended family situations, but only one single parent. Non-US context.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Anecdotally, non-US, many of my friends grew up in these situations (single parent, usually mom, extended family helps take care). Brought up well, too Apparently sometimes there are people other than your parent(s) who both want and can do a better job at actual parenting. (Say if one or both of the parents are still young and stupid/unstable or slightly insane/dead or can't be bothered.)
    - brucethemoose2 3y ago
      I have seen this in the US, but my sample size is very small even for an individual. It might not even be detected on surveys. The parent would say they were a single parent if asked, which is true, but family pitches in a ton.
diogenescynic 3y ago
[flagged]
BaculumMeumEst 3y ago
2019
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jimbob45 3y ago
How does India have such a low number with their high population?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  Multigenerational homes and extended family care would not be counted as “single parent” in this study Its more of a “one adult in the house” study
- paxys 3y ago
  The numbers are percentages, so why would total population matter?
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    I interpreted that comment as "Its remarkable that India has a lower total number with so much population," implying that the rate is drastically lower."
    - known 3y ago
      [dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dotnet00 3y ago
  On top of the other points, like in many other conservative cultures, much of the population leans towards staying in a bad relationship if already married because divorce is seen as worse than being a dysfunctional family, especially for women.
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
Supply5411 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- autoexec 3y ago
  This study says nothing at all about that. Please take your bigotry elsewhere. While there are clear advantages to children having same-sex role models there is no requirement that the role model be a parent.
  - Supply5411 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - wtallis 3y ago
      You're not merely suggesting, you're asserting that there's widespread evidence of a serious problem, without pointing to any.
      - Supply5411 3y ago
        Got me, I totally made up this brand new social idea that men need fathers. It's so new and cutting edge that nobody has ever researched it or looked into it.
        wtallis 3y ago
        I see that your account is barely two weeks old, so in case you're new here, please take notice: this forum has standards [0]. You're posting in a manner that violates quite a few of the rules. Using snark and playing dumb to evade any risk of serious discussion will earn you a ban in any thread, with or without the context of your obvious undercurrent of bigotry. As for this specific comment: you're still only pointing to hypotheses rather than evidence. And there are enough really obvious counterarguments that there's no way to pretend you're trying to engage in serious conversation. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
alexanderson 3y ago
Freakonomics most recent podcast episode was about this very topic, and the data that indicates how valuable two-parent households can be to the parents and the children. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/when-did-marriage-become-a-luxury-good/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/when-did-marriage-become-a-...
- Supply5411 3y ago
  [flagged]
- wowdang 3y ago
  [dead]
svggrfgovgf 3y ago
Not surprising. A part of the cultural war in the US (in 1992) was that it was fine, even encouraged, for a woman to be a single parent. The controversy started between Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown (a fictional character that decided to become a single mother). The MSM at the time was extremely supportive of Murphy Brown's position. Here's an editorial by the Brookings Institution from 2012 about the controversy. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/twenty-years-later-it-turns-out-dan-quayle-was-right-about-murphy-brown-and-unmarried-moms/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/twenty-years-later-it-tur...
- kibwen 3y ago
  I find the argument here to be so incomplete that it verges on silly. Raising a child is difficult, and nobody goes into it wanting to go it alone. The question is not "is single parenthood bad", it's "is single parenthood worse than the alternative of forcing parents to stay together despite a toxic, loveless, or unfaithful marriage". Of course, ideally, people just shouldn't be having kids if they're not absolutely sure that they want to be raising children. The best salve we have for the overall problem is access to birth control.
  - svggrfgovgf 3y ago
    > nobody goes into it wanting to go it alone I think this is missing the point of the controversy. The argument at the time was that it was fine for women to chose to have a child without being married. It was not about "couples should stay together for the sake of the children". The whole point of the TV show was "Murphy Brown was divorced, and then she decided it was fine to have a child." That is, if a single women wanted to have a child, she should. There was no need for her to first establish a working marriage first.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      > The whole point of the TV show was "Murphy Brown was divorced, and then she decided it was fine to have a child." Here's how the Wikipedia plot synopsis describes it: "In the show's 1991–92 season, Murphy became pregnant. When her baby's father (ex-husband and current underground radical Jake Lowenstein) expressed his unwillingness to give up his own lifestyle to be a parent, Murphy chose to have the child and raise it alone." If you were to see a real-life woman in the same circumstance, what would you advise that she do instead? And why are we blaming the mother for the problem of deadbeat fathers?
nineplay 3y ago
The legality and acceptability of divorce isn't mentioned but I think it should be. Single parents will be rarer in countries where divorce isn't a viable option but that doesn't mean the children are raised in healthier environments.
- DougN7 3y ago
  That’s part of it, but having a “baby mama” (i.e. never married/living together in the first place), is also an issue. I know a guy that is 21 that has already fathered 4 children with 3 women, and is supporting none of them. It’s sad.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  Yeah, thats a interesting factor. But I can't even imagine trying to gather statistics for that with surveys.
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  Yeah, this sort of statistic seems vague enough that you can draw whatever conclusions you'd like out of it. To draw any sort of real conclusions you'd have to dig a lot deeper.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Exactly: having to bond with a crazy or abusive parent is what's actually unhealthy, not lacking a parent. Children grow up perfectly fine making bonds with non-parents. (See also the father/mother figure trope.) They may do it even if the parent(s) exist but were not fit for the role. In many countries extended families can help sort this out. It is only a bigger problem if you have a single parent + no extended family support. I imagine social services (is that what they're called) or teachers compensate for the extended family role in countries like US?
  - COGlory 3y ago
    Studies show that the biggest indicator child economic success is having two parents. Yeah, there's a lot of indirect measurements and selection bias, but it still says overwhelmingly: 2 parents is better than 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-success-income-inequality-2014-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ... It sucks, but having only one parent is a huge disadvantage.
defrost 3y ago
One of the larger blank "No Data" areas is Australia (total pop. ~ 24 million (ish)) which is a bit slack on the Pew side given the ease of getting accurate data for the country: In June 2022, there were 7.3 million families, an increase of 1 million (15.3%) since June 2012. Of these: * 6.2 million (84.2%) were couple families * 1.0 million (14.2%) were one parent families with 79.9% of these being single mothers * 118,000 (1.6%) were classified as 'other families', where at least two people were related in some way other than as a couple or as a parent and child (such as adult-age siblings) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-status-families/latest-release https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unem...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
I’m more interested in the correlation with wealth and long lived ness with older couples living alone.
brnaftr361 3y ago
We went from cultural conventions dating back to the Roman empire at least and upheaved them in large part. Those were staples in the social fabric which have not yet been hewn shut. It's no wonder we're replete with relational dysfunction as we've all been untethered and left to figure it out. It's confusing for both men and women, not to mention the trans folks and those outside the heteronormal sphere. Our recent forebears have clumsily pulled the rug. And what I mean by this is that we've, for example, still got houses built for whole families, yet the families have so often been split. The density doesn't work and there isn't enough of the intermediary to go around, and it seems like that has been a multi-decadal problem at this point, which has been growing enormously. Houses are neither fit for a return to the nest, and they aren't suited for bifurcation so neither can we expect people to live in multigenerational households nor can we expect the constituents of a family to remain in close proximity (nor should we, in many cases). That then further complicates things, once trivial obstacles require resorting whole days, perhaps weeks. And if a coparent is unreliable - by God will that drastically complicate one's life, sometimes it's easier just to cut away, whole cloth. Whether that was a good and noble thing I can't dispute. But it was done with little foresight, and I can hardly say if my own perspective - that lack of foresight, of prescience, is just characteristic of my own privileged hindsight - but I think it's evident we're in a poorer place because of it. But it's sort of besides the point anyways as we're here and now. And it may appear easy to just say "Well, I'll stick with ye olde convention." But I don't think it's the case as everyone, myself included, wants their cake and to eat it too. Fantasy and reality are more miscible than ever before. Apparently normal people with reams and reams of their life's perfectly orchestrated highlights on shining beaches sunken in beautiful blue oceans with perfect partners - except they're buried in debt and have median income and fight incessantly, but they copy type well enough and edit even better so nobody knows they've got skeletons in the closet. And these are the kind of standards we're all sort of inadvertently supporting. And with that unreality we convey ourselves into deeper depths. But that's old hat, everyone knows it (or everyone I know does) and yet we're still marching off in that direction because — still — nobody knows what the fuck we're doing, and it won't be plain to see until some very hard times come, I reckon.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Hard times are coming and are here in many places. That’s why even progressive EU is turning far right.
araes 3y ago
This is exactly the same as: Loyal workers are selectively and ironically targeted for exploitation [1] People who read the GameFaq [2] already know this is how society works. Loyalty is punished, lazy cheating rewarded. Even children watching porn know the drill "She doesn't want it, but really she does. No means she wants it." That's the entire book. Extended version: 1) Select a Target, 2) Approach and Open, 3) Demonstrate Value, 4) Disarm Obstacles, 5) Isolate Target, 6) Create Emotional Connection, 7) Seduction Location Extract, 8) Pump Buying Temperature, 9) Make Physical Connection, 10) Blast Last-Minute Resistance PS: 11) Believe nothing the entire time, 12) Reduce the opponent's value to nothing so the only redemption is intercourse, 13) You're interacting with a video game character of absolutely no value whatsoever except for the score, 14) All is Increment++, 15) Ditch in a way where there's no long term connections, 16) Be on the lookout for the next level (existence only reward the most useless. How else are you going to administratively golf, while stealing every professor in the University's money, while swearing about missing a shot on a completely flat grass lawn?) Its only an MMO overrun with exploit users. It's just Game Theory. Backstabbing must win. Existence forces backstabbing to win. All it does is lie about being nice while being ** underneath. "Merica..." Look at all venture capital, same strategy. "Innovate. Disrupt. Paradigm shift. We're pivoting to FinTech/AI/Social/VR/Quantum/Nano/Cyber/Cloud/Mindshare/Frameworks". Only ninja/wizard/blood ninjas need apply. "Round A/B/IPO/exit/Burn the world behind you." PS: Be rewarded with more IPOs for successfully burning money (I'm looking at you "New"man of WeWork). Look at military innovation "Say whatever's necessary (blah, blah, warfighters, thoughts/prayers). Believe nothing. Close. Get money / rank advancement. Leave." [4] And thus "why are there so many single children?" Because existence rewards humans for playing like Fight Club. Gotta travel around setting up franchises. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103122001615?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secret_Society_of_Pickup_Artists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory [4] https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2023/09/19/innovation-overload-army-units-are-drowning-ideas.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2023/09/19/inno...
jsndidneske 3y ago
If i got married and she didnt work i would lose per month 800$+ in childcare costs, 550$ in cash assistance and our combined foodstamps would effectively drop by like 100-150$ over our household amount(hers and mine before marriage). if i got married to a normal earning woman id lose 2500$ in benifits total a month. This includes 560$ towards rental assistance. And when i start working ill lose 500$ a month and probably 250$ in food stamps. But if i just dont work i can raise my son like a parent should. Which is first priority. E, Maryland. A town with slightly lower than average rental costs,, but great livability statistics. We have a two floor, two bedroom apartment with listed price of 720$.

Interesting how closely the UK shares our value system, based on these stats I wonder if Canada would be the same without the indigenous cultural and French influence

kevinh 3y ago

Seemingly mostly due to extended family homes being rare here, as that doesn't count as single-parent in this way of measuring. Single parent USA: 23% Single parent world: 7% Extended family USA: 8% Extended family world: 38%

anon291 3y ago
Regardless of how you slice it... an extended family household has multiple adults. That means the US leads the world in children being raised with only one adult around. EDIT: Also, to be clear, an extended family household means that mom and dad could still be around, so it says nothing of a household with only either mom or dad (most likely mom, according to the article).
kamikaz1k 3y ago
I can't see why single parent has a bridge to extended family. Single Parenthood is about parents splitting, extended family is about mutually supporting generations. Anecdotally, I know quite a few extended family situations, but only one single parent. Non-US context.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Anecdotally, non-US, many of my friends grew up in these situations (single parent, usually mom, extended family helps take care). Brought up well, too Apparently sometimes there are people other than your parent(s) who both want and can do a better job at actual parenting. (Say if one or both of the parents are still young and stupid/unstable or slightly insane/dead or can't be bothered.)
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    I have seen this in the US, but my sample size is very small even for an individual. It might not even be detected on surveys. The parent would say they were a single parent if asked, which is true, but family pitches in a ton.

diogenescynic 3y ago

[flagged]

BaculumMeumEst 3y ago

2019

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jimbob45 3y ago

How does India have such a low number with their high population?

yieldcrv 3y ago
Multigenerational homes and extended family care would not be counted as “single parent” in this study Its more of a “one adult in the house” study
paxys 3y ago
The numbers are percentages, so why would total population matter?
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  I interpreted that comment as "Its remarkable that India has a lower total number with so much population," implying that the rate is drastically lower."
  - known 3y ago
    [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dotnet00 3y ago
On top of the other points, like in many other conservative cultures, much of the population leans towards staying in a bad relationship if already married because divorce is seen as worse than being a dysfunctional family, especially for women.
rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]
- mensetmanusman 3y ago

Supply5411 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
autoexec 3y ago
This study says nothing at all about that. Please take your bigotry elsewhere. While there are clear advantages to children having same-sex role models there is no requirement that the role model be a parent.
- Supply5411 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - wtallis 3y ago
    You're not merely suggesting, you're asserting that there's widespread evidence of a serious problem, without pointing to any.
    - Supply5411 3y ago
      Got me, I totally made up this brand new social idea that men need fathers. It's so new and cutting edge that nobody has ever researched it or looked into it.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        I see that your account is barely two weeks old, so in case you're new here, please take notice: this forum has standards [0]. You're posting in a manner that violates quite a few of the rules. Using snark and playing dumb to evade any risk of serious discussion will earn you a ban in any thread, with or without the context of your obvious undercurrent of bigotry. As for this specific comment: you're still only pointing to hypotheses rather than evidence. And there are enough really obvious counterarguments that there's no way to pretend you're trying to engage in serious conversation. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

alexanderson 3y ago

Freakonomics most recent podcast episode was about this very topic, and the data that indicates how valuable two-parent households can be to the parents and the children. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/when-did-marriage-become-a-luxury-good/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/when-did-marriage-become-a-...

Supply5411 3y ago
[flagged]
wowdang 3y ago
[dead]

svggrfgovgf 3y ago

Not surprising. A part of the cultural war in the US (in 1992) was that it was fine, even encouraged, for a woman to be a single parent. The controversy started between Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown (a fictional character that decided to become a single mother). The MSM at the time was extremely supportive of Murphy Brown's position. Here's an editorial by the Brookings Institution from 2012 about the controversy. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/twenty-years-later-it-turns-out-dan-quayle-was-right-about-murphy-brown-and-unmarried-moms/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/twenty-years-later-it-tur...

kibwen 3y ago
I find the argument here to be so incomplete that it verges on silly. Raising a child is difficult, and nobody goes into it wanting to go it alone. The question is not "is single parenthood bad", it's "is single parenthood worse than the alternative of forcing parents to stay together despite a toxic, loveless, or unfaithful marriage". Of course, ideally, people just shouldn't be having kids if they're not absolutely sure that they want to be raising children. The best salve we have for the overall problem is access to birth control.
- svggrfgovgf 3y ago
  > nobody goes into it wanting to go it alone I think this is missing the point of the controversy. The argument at the time was that it was fine for women to chose to have a child without being married. It was not about "couples should stay together for the sake of the children". The whole point of the TV show was "Murphy Brown was divorced, and then she decided it was fine to have a child." That is, if a single women wanted to have a child, she should. There was no need for her to first establish a working marriage first.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > The whole point of the TV show was "Murphy Brown was divorced, and then she decided it was fine to have a child." Here's how the Wikipedia plot synopsis describes it: "In the show's 1991–92 season, Murphy became pregnant. When her baby's father (ex-husband and current underground radical Jake Lowenstein) expressed his unwillingness to give up his own lifestyle to be a parent, Murphy chose to have the child and raise it alone." If you were to see a real-life woman in the same circumstance, what would you advise that she do instead? And why are we blaming the mother for the problem of deadbeat fathers?

nineplay 3y ago

The legality and acceptability of divorce isn't mentioned but I think it should be. Single parents will be rarer in countries where divorce isn't a viable option but that doesn't mean the children are raised in healthier environments.

DougN7 3y ago
That’s part of it, but having a “baby mama” (i.e. never married/living together in the first place), is also an issue. I know a guy that is 21 that has already fathered 4 children with 3 women, and is supporting none of them. It’s sad.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
Yeah, thats a interesting factor. But I can't even imagine trying to gather statistics for that with surveys.
gaganyaan 3y ago
Yeah, this sort of statistic seems vague enough that you can draw whatever conclusions you'd like out of it. To draw any sort of real conclusions you'd have to dig a lot deeper.
throwaway290 3y ago
Exactly: having to bond with a crazy or abusive parent is what's actually unhealthy, not lacking a parent. Children grow up perfectly fine making bonds with non-parents. (See also the father/mother figure trope.) They may do it even if the parent(s) exist but were not fit for the role. In many countries extended families can help sort this out. It is only a bigger problem if you have a single parent + no extended family support. I imagine social services (is that what they're called) or teachers compensate for the extended family role in countries like US?
- COGlory 3y ago
  Studies show that the biggest indicator child economic success is having two parents. Yeah, there's a lot of indirect measurements and selection bias, but it still says overwhelmingly: 2 parents is better than 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-success-income-inequality-2014-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-succ... It sucks, but having only one parent is a huge disadvantage.

defrost 3y ago

One of the larger blank "No Data" areas is Australia (total pop. ~ 24 million (ish)) which is a bit slack on the Pew side given the ease of getting accurate data for the country: In June 2022, there were 7.3 million families, an increase of 1 million (15.3%) since June 2012. Of these: * 6.2 million (84.2%) were couple families * 1.0 million (14.2%) were one parent families with 79.9% of these being single mothers * 118,000 (1.6%) were classified as 'other families', where at least two people were related in some way other than as a couple or as a parent and child (such as adult-age siblings) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-status-families/latest-release https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unem...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

I’m more interested in the correlation with wealth and long lived ness with older couples living alone.

brnaftr361 3y ago

We went from cultural conventions dating back to the Roman empire at least and upheaved them in large part. Those were staples in the social fabric which have not yet been hewn shut. It's no wonder we're replete with relational dysfunction as we've all been untethered and left to figure it out. It's confusing for both men and women, not to mention the trans folks and those outside the heteronormal sphere. Our recent forebears have clumsily pulled the rug. And what I mean by this is that we've, for example, still got houses built for whole families, yet the families have so often been split. The density doesn't work and there isn't enough of the intermediary to go around, and it seems like that has been a multi-decadal problem at this point, which has been growing enormously. Houses are neither fit for a return to the nest, and they aren't suited for bifurcation so neither can we expect people to live in multigenerational households nor can we expect the constituents of a family to remain in close proximity (nor should we, in many cases). That then further complicates things, once trivial obstacles require resorting whole days, perhaps weeks. And if a coparent is unreliable - by God will that drastically complicate one's life, sometimes it's easier just to cut away, whole cloth. Whether that was a good and noble thing I can't dispute. But it was done with little foresight, and I can hardly say if my own perspective - that lack of foresight, of prescience, is just characteristic of my own privileged hindsight - but I think it's evident we're in a poorer place because of it. But it's sort of besides the point anyways as we're here and now. And it may appear easy to just say "Well, I'll stick with ye olde convention." But I don't think it's the case as everyone, myself included, wants their cake and to eat it too. Fantasy and reality are more miscible than ever before. Apparently normal people with reams and reams of their life's perfectly orchestrated highlights on shining beaches sunken in beautiful blue oceans with perfect partners - except they're buried in debt and have median income and fight incessantly, but they copy type well enough and edit even better so nobody knows they've got skeletons in the closet. And these are the kind of standards we're all sort of inadvertently supporting. And with that unreality we convey ourselves into deeper depths. But that's old hat, everyone knows it (or everyone I know does) and yet we're still marching off in that direction because — still — nobody knows what the fuck we're doing, and it won't be plain to see until some very hard times come, I reckon.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Hard times are coming and are here in many places. That’s why even progressive EU is turning far right.

araes 3y ago

This is exactly the same as: Loyal workers are selectively and ironically targeted for exploitation [1] People who read the GameFaq [2] already know this is how society works. Loyalty is punished, lazy cheating rewarded. Even children watching porn know the drill "She doesn't want it, but really she does. No means she wants it." That's the entire book. Extended version: 1) Select a Target, 2) Approach and Open, 3) Demonstrate Value, 4) Disarm Obstacles, 5) Isolate Target, 6) Create Emotional Connection, 7) Seduction Location Extract, 8) Pump Buying Temperature, 9) Make Physical Connection, 10) Blast Last-Minute Resistance PS: 11) Believe nothing the entire time, 12) Reduce the opponent's value to nothing so the only redemption is intercourse, 13) You're interacting with a video game character of absolutely no value whatsoever except for the score, 14) All is Increment++, 15) Ditch in a way where there's no long term connections, 16) Be on the lookout for the next level (existence only reward the most useless. How else are you going to administratively golf, while stealing every professor in the University's money, while swearing about missing a shot on a completely flat grass lawn?) Its only an MMO overrun with exploit users. It's just Game Theory. Backstabbing must win. Existence forces backstabbing to win. All it does is lie about being nice while being ** underneath. "Merica..." Look at all venture capital, same strategy. "Innovate. Disrupt. Paradigm shift. We're pivoting to FinTech/AI/Social/VR/Quantum/Nano/Cyber/Cloud/Mindshare/Frameworks". Only ninja/wizard/blood ninjas need apply. "Round A/B/IPO/exit/Burn the world behind you." PS: Be rewarded with more IPOs for successfully burning money (I'm looking at you "New"man of WeWork). Look at military innovation "Say whatever's necessary (blah, blah, warfighters, thoughts/prayers). Believe nothing. Close. Get money / rank advancement. Leave." [4] And thus "why are there so many single children?" Because existence rewards humans for playing like Fight Club. Gotta travel around setting up franchises. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103122001615?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secret_Society_of_Pickup_Artists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory [4] https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2023/09/19/innovation-overload-army-units-are-drowning-ideas.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2023/09/19/inno...

jsndidneske 3y ago

If i got married and she didnt work i would lose per month 800$+ in childcare costs, 550$ in cash assistance and our combined foodstamps would effectively drop by like 100-150$ over our household amount(hers and mine before marriage). if i got married to a normal earning woman id lose 2500$ in benifits total a month. This includes 560$ towards rental assistance. And when i start working ill lose 500$ a month and probably 250$ in food stamps. But if i just dont work i can raise my son like a parent should. Which is first priority. E, Maryland. A town with slightly lower than average rental costs,, but great livability statistics. We have a two floor, two bedroom apartment with listed price of 720$.