11 ms·

America is moving the other way because all the wealth and power has been sucked up by the 0.1% and a large majority are too tired, stressed, and poor. Everyth

America is moving the other way because all the wealth and power has been sucked up by the 0.1% and a large majority are too tired, stressed, and poor. Everything stems from this. Too much wealth tied up in the health insurance scam to switch to single payer, so people stay bound to their employment, and they can't afford time off or visits to the doctor because nothing is completely covered anymore. Too much wealth available to politicians and getting elected requires massive funding, so already rich folk are the vast majority of elected officials now. Which means they're completely out of touch of what a poor person's life consists of nowadays.

christophilus 3y ago
I’m not sure everything stems from this. Marriage was not just for the wealthy and nobles in the Middle Ages, or in the 1800s or in subsaharan Africa, etc. If it’s a matter of relative wealth disparity, there have been plenty of eras (probably the majority of recorded human history) in which the kings and nobles had a similar wealth gap to their poorest married subjects as we see today between the 1% and the 99%. I’m not defending wealth disparity; simply suggesting there’s likely another cause for the marriage-rate collapse.
- Mayzie 3y ago
  You can’t survive or support a family with a single income these days.. It’s required for both partners to work.
  - pleoxy 3y ago
    Been doing it for more than 15 years. Where there is a will, there is a way.
    - pylua 3y ago
      You certainly can, but going by the numbers most people can’t.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        In what sense? Where are the people starving to death? Most people seem to be able to do just fine on zero incomes.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        Can’t see the goalposts anymore, where are they?
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        >>>> You can’t survive or support a family with a single income these days.
        Belopolye 3y ago
        The issue for most is likely student loans impacting buying power.
      - kbelder 3y ago
        >can't Won't. Some can't, but we can't tell how many.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    You absolutely can. Our family does and many of my friends do. They aren’t all wealthy people. It isn’t always a choice, but often it is. Many people can live on one income but choose a lifestyle that requires two.
    - 2devnull 3y ago
      Do you live in an area with high international demand for housing? Not all of the US is a hot spot for high paid immigrants, yet. Displacement is a real thing. Not everyone can change states or nations to make the finances work out.
      - bequanna 3y ago
        Luckily in the US you can choose to live wherever you want. If you’re priced out of a neighborhood, you can choose to live somewhere else. You can also choose how many and why type of cars to have, what food to eat, how much to spend on vacations, etc. Hell, you can even choose where and what you do for work! What a country! Many people will choose higher spending power with two incomes rather than take a step down to live on one.
        2devnull 3y ago
        You are agreeing in a weird way. Yes, in America if you live somewhere that other people want to live, then you have to move or take on two incomes. That was my point, that because US real estate has become an attractive investment over the past decades and the growth and current size foreign capital outweighs the average American family’s purchasing power which results in: people resort to two incomes, wait to start families, have fewer children when they do have children, etc…
        gls2ro 3y ago
        I am not sure how it is in US but sharing a bit from my perspective (living in EU): The (mental) cost of moving is sometimes hard. Here are only two main things: - you lose your support system (friends, family) - you lose your time (and maybe cost) saving tricks/knowledge (where to go to buy things, medicine, …) All these are not impossible to solve but they are way harder for single parent family.
  - liquidpele 3y ago
    To be fair, this is mostly a consequence of women entering the workforce. Not that that’s bad, but it’s an unintended consequence that companies were then able to convince workers to work for less because people could survive on it still.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      Yeah see I think that’s part of the wealth being sucked into the 0.1%
    - otteromkram 3y ago
      "To be fair..." If you leave this out of your response, do you believe that you're still conveying the same message? I do.
    - foogazi 3y ago
      This assumes they competed for the same jobs, is that true ? Why didn’t women entering the workforce lead to growth and more jobs being created ?
      - liquidpele 3y ago
        Because it’s not about the jobs, it’s about what salary people will settle for. If a family had to make X to live comfortable before, now you can do so with each of you making half that as long as it adds up to X. People shouldn’t settle for less, but they do even if only a few percent… where before people didn’t to the same degree because it had more immediate impact. This in turn is one of the several market forces that has contributed to deflated wages.
  - jollofricepeas 3y ago
    Exactly. Manufacturing jobs used to exist. Manufacturing jobs used to exist in high numbers. Manufacturing jobs that didn’t require a high school education existed in high numbers. Manufacturing jobs that paid well and provided a pension and didn’t require high education existed in high numbers.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    That's an argument that should be increasing the number of dual parent households. If a family could be supported on a single income, then abandoning your family would have fewer consequences and thus seemingly more likely.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      No, what you would expect to see is a drastic decrease number in the number of children born. People are choosing not to have families at all. In late 1960 we peaked with somewhere around 47% of households having children. It is now around 26% In 1990 the number of married couples in the US started to flatline even though the population is up 40% since then.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        You're correct, but that's an orthogonal effect. The cost of raising children is definitely lowering the number of children. But it also should put pressure on parents to stay together once the children are conceived.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    A substantial reason for that is cultural change though. You can’t close to double the supply of something without expecting the price to go down (probably by something close to half).
- lapcat 3y ago
  > I’m not defending wealth disparity; simply suggesting there’s likely another cause for the marriage-rate collapse. In the past that you're talking about, women were not allowed to be independent, i.e., own property or obtain jobs that could support a family. So women had little choice but to get married. As long as non-marriage is a realistic choice for women, the marriage rates will never be as high as they were when society made women subservient.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    >> In the past that you're talking about, women were not allowed to be independent, i.e., own property or obtain jobs that could support a family. That is maybe half true or not true at all. Women could own property and could be somewhat independent. Queen Elisabeth owned a whole country in the 16th century. In general not only women but men as well had a duty to their families and had to do what their parents demanded of them. And marriage was high on the list of things parents expected from their children whether they were male or female.
    - otteromkram 3y ago
      I think the person you're replying to was using the US as context (given the theme of the article), but you are correct that in certain regions of the world, women's rights to property ownership and inheritance were protected.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Queen Elisabeth owned a whole country in the 16th century. That's one women, and a strange example to cite, because my comment was in response to a discussion about the disparity of wealth ("kings and nobles had a similar wealth gap to their poorest married subjects as we see today between the 1% and the 99%). Obviously, queens have no trouble raising successful children, but that doesn't help anyone else in society. (It should be noted, however, that Elizabeth I was the so-called "Virgin Queen" who had no children.)
      - nec4b 3y ago
- jollofricepeas 3y ago
  Well… The reason for marriage collapse is lack of well paying manufacturing jobs. The American Economic Institute - https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 Brookings Institute study - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impa https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impa...
  - userinanother 3y ago
    Which might be fine if after that men went home and took over traditional female tasks like cooking, cleaning and childcare. But they didn’t, and instead women ended up bringing in the money and having to do everything else while the husbands played video games and didn’t contribute. This resulted in women getting rid of the husband so they didn’t have an extra kid to take care of.
    - SirMaster 3y ago
      So then this creates a viscous cycle where the single woman will raise boys without a father role model, and those boys will go onto become poor husbands etc? This kind of feels like part of the problem here.
      - userinanother 3y ago
        But if the father is terrible and just another mouth to feed idk if any better
- chongli 3y ago
  Marriage was not just for the wealthy and nobles in the Middle Ages, or in the 1800s or in subsaharan Africa, etc. In the Middle Ages, children were an investment. You fed them and clothed them and raised them for just a few years before they started to pay off. As soon as they were physically able to walk and listen to instructions, children began to work, usually on the family farm. This human capital that a couple could grow themselves made marriage and child-rearing a highly profitable activity. It led to generational wealth, which marriage existed to secure and apportion. This is no longer true in modern city life. Children are a luxury good, not capital. They don’t produce any wealth for their parents. They simply consume enormous resources until they move out and start their own independent lives.
lvl102 3y ago
I find it ridiculous that healthcare is the greatest driver of cost of living but no one does anything about it. Doctors and nurses are overworked too. It’s the biggest scam going right now and all the politicians are in on it.
- unnamed76ri 3y ago
  You can place the blame for both things on the federal government. 1. Obamacare was promised to save families $2500 per year. Instead healthcare costs have predictably nearly doubled. 2. A few decades ago the government actively discouraged medical schools from enrolling enough would-be doctors because they had a misguided belief that the country would have too many.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - lvl102 3y ago
    PPACA was one of the biggest policy fails and put us at a great competitive disadvantage. We were coming out of the Great Financial Crisis and the Rust Belt desperately needed manufacturing revival which the likes of Walmart forced abroad. At least some of that is reversing.
- userinanother 3y ago
  CPI says it’s 8% of your basket. Thats obviously not true
seaman1921 3y ago
nice excuse for not being able to maintain relationships. Going by your logic, maintaining one in poorer countries should be impossible
- pylua 3y ago
  I suspect there are other complicating factors in western cultures that may but additional stress on relationships, including blaming yourself instead of the environment for your situation.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Being an average person in a poor country is very different from being poor in a rich country.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    very much this. in "poor countries" people can have a lifestyle that matches their income, and they can survive on that. yes, many struggle, and they all would like to have a better life, but most can at least find an affordable place to live and don't go hungry. the problem in "rich countries" is that affordable places to live are missing. so being poor without government support to pay for a home causes you to be homeless.
threeseed 3y ago
> Everything stems from this. Almost everything. One issue is that although most Western countries have Paid Parental Leave (except for US) pregnancy still puts women at a career disadvantage. Because companies can sometimes find out that either (a) the person's role was unnecessary or (b) their replacement is better. And so especially for women in senior positions it's just not worth the risk. Another is around the cost and availability of child care. Current global shortage is a real issue.
- em-bee 3y ago
  so effectively that means that children themselves are a career disadvantage, which is a problem in itself that needs to be addressed because we can't sustain a society where having children is a negative. the equality part of the issue could be addressed with men getting equal parental leave, but it doesn't solve the actual problem. we really need to support parenting more, deemphasize the importance of career and emphasize the importance of having children.
unnamed76ri 3y ago
Everything does not stem from wealth inequality. Almost-everything wrong in US culture stems from selfishness. Which would include things you talked about. But it also includes people making selfish choices that bring about the end of their marriages (affairs, career, addictions).
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  ? So the wealth inequality right? How do you think the wealthy got wealthy without selfishness? You seem to be implying that it isn't the inequality, but that all those poor people should stop being selfish. If only those poor people would stop being selfish, the wealth inequality wouldn't be a problem. LOL.
  - hirundo 3y ago
    Wealth follows a Pareto distribution, and there are many Pareto distributions of things that are not caused by selfishness. https://www.thelangelfirm.com/debt-collection-defense-blog/2018/august/100-examples-of-the-80-20-rule/ https://www.thelangelfirm.com/debt-collection-defense-blog/2... If selfishness isn't a good general explanation for Pareto distributions, is there a reason that it's particularly explanatory for wealth distribution?
    - wenebego 3y ago
      They are choosing to further enrich themselves past what any single person can consume, instead of helping those around them, the definition of selfishness.
      - hirundo 3y ago
        You could get the same distribution if everyone is assigned a random amount of selfishness regardless of wealth, but some people are better at achieving their selfish goals than others, or just luckier. How could someone know that the result is primarily due to non-uniform selfishness? You could measure selfishness in small experimental scenarios and try to correlate it with the wealth of the subjects. Does that evidence exist?
pylua 3y ago
I strongly agree with this. It’s unbelievable to me that no media outlet can reach this conclusion.
dietsche 3y ago
This argument is non sequitor. If wealth inequality was the problem, couples would be forced by economics to work together to bring in more together than they could separately and to share resources like housing to reduce costs.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  You think this isn't happening? The problem is now even dual incomes are not enough. So when squeezed, guess what, people get stressed and start crumbling.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Yes, if people are perfectly spherical economic machines.
- lapcat 3y ago
  From the article: > many women don't marry the father of their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability. If you think of marriage as purely a business partnership, would you go into business with someone who is unreliable? It's better to be a sole proprietorship than have your entire business brought down by a bad partner, where both partners are liable for the bad partner's actions and decisions.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    the partnership started the moment they decided to have a child. so why even have a child with someone who is unreliable?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > the partnership started the moment they decided to have a child. Assuming they "decided". > so why even have a child with someone who is unreliable? Because you want a child? Sperm donor.
    - angmarsbane 3y ago
rychco 3y ago
I think the blame can be squarely placed on the cost of housing.
pleoxy 3y ago
You don't buy a marriage. If you try you are doing it wrong. Finances are a component of marriage, not the driver.
- hirundo 3y ago
  Finance used to be the driver of marriage, and now that it is less so there are fewer marriages.
  - pleoxy 3y ago
    Till layoff do us part. How could I miss that it's fundamentally part of everyone's martial vows?? /S Marriage is about love, companionship, and children. Particularly because of children there will always be a significant economic component. But it's not the driver, it's a supporting component.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jollofricepeas 3y ago
Actually… You’re right. Wealth inequality means less jobs for the lower class. Specifically, less high paying manufacturing (labor) jobs. There’s lot of studies that show that marriage rates have decreased because of… - the decrease in union power - globalization (offshoring) - technological innovation Read them here: American Economic Institute - https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 Brookings Institute - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impact-of-economic-and-technological-change-on-marriage-rates/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impa...
throwaway5Am1k 3y ago
At some point, you need to stop blaming (or giving power to) others for your situation, and take control for your own wellbeing. Who you marry is well within your control, and not the 0.1%. Take some responsibility, it's a good first step to improving your, and your community's situation. >Everything stems from this. No, not it doesn't. If you think that wealth distribution is the cause of all of today's problems, you need to do more exploration.
nec4b 3y ago
>> Everything stems from this. And how do you explain how very poor countries where the top 1% have wealth comparable to wealthy American peers and 99% of the country has less income American middle class had 100 years ago and they have no problems with marriages?
- kthejoker2 3y ago
  What rights do women have in those country? Can they vote? Drive? Get abortion? Get birth control? Do they have marital rape laws? Domestic abuse laws? Do they have no fault divorce laws? How do they handle common law property? Custody laws? Parental rights? What education do they provide to young women? What institutions do they have supporting female financial independence? What role does organized religion and specifically church leadership play in the day to day lives of women? The answer to your question is culture. Wealth simply fuels culture, it is not the source of it.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    So in short I guess you agree not everything stems from wealth inequality.
    - kthejoker2 3y ago
      Oh absolutely (I didn't even read the whole thread till this comment!) Are we taking a vote? :)
perryizgr8 3y ago
I don't think this matters at all. The poorest in America are above average on the global level when it comes to quality of life. Yet the actual poorest citizens of the world seem to have no problems staying married and raising children.

christophilus 3y ago

I’m not sure everything stems from this. Marriage was not just for the wealthy and nobles in the Middle Ages, or in the 1800s or in subsaharan Africa, etc. If it’s a matter of relative wealth disparity, there have been plenty of eras (probably the majority of recorded human history) in which the kings and nobles had a similar wealth gap to their poorest married subjects as we see today between the 1% and the 99%. I’m not defending wealth disparity; simply suggesting there’s likely another cause for the marriage-rate collapse.

Mayzie 3y ago
You can’t survive or support a family with a single income these days.. It’s required for both partners to work.
- pleoxy 3y ago
  Been doing it for more than 15 years. Where there is a will, there is a way.
  - pylua 3y ago
    You certainly can, but going by the numbers most people can’t.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      In what sense? Where are the people starving to death? Most people seem to be able to do just fine on zero incomes.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        Can’t see the goalposts anymore, where are they?
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        >>>> You can’t survive or support a family with a single income these days.
      - Belopolye 3y ago
        The issue for most is likely student loans impacting buying power.
    - kbelder 3y ago
      >can't Won't. Some can't, but we can't tell how many.
- bequanna 3y ago
  You absolutely can. Our family does and many of my friends do. They aren’t all wealthy people. It isn’t always a choice, but often it is. Many people can live on one income but choose a lifestyle that requires two.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    Do you live in an area with high international demand for housing? Not all of the US is a hot spot for high paid immigrants, yet. Displacement is a real thing. Not everyone can change states or nations to make the finances work out.
    - bequanna 3y ago
      Luckily in the US you can choose to live wherever you want. If you’re priced out of a neighborhood, you can choose to live somewhere else. You can also choose how many and why type of cars to have, what food to eat, how much to spend on vacations, etc. Hell, you can even choose where and what you do for work! What a country! Many people will choose higher spending power with two incomes rather than take a step down to live on one.
      - 2devnull 3y ago
        You are agreeing in a weird way. Yes, in America if you live somewhere that other people want to live, then you have to move or take on two incomes. That was my point, that because US real estate has become an attractive investment over the past decades and the growth and current size foreign capital outweighs the average American family’s purchasing power which results in: people resort to two incomes, wait to start families, have fewer children when they do have children, etc…
      - gls2ro 3y ago
        I am not sure how it is in US but sharing a bit from my perspective (living in EU): The (mental) cost of moving is sometimes hard. Here are only two main things: - you lose your support system (friends, family) - you lose your time (and maybe cost) saving tricks/knowledge (where to go to buy things, medicine, …) All these are not impossible to solve but they are way harder for single parent family.
- liquidpele 3y ago
  To be fair, this is mostly a consequence of women entering the workforce. Not that that’s bad, but it’s an unintended consequence that companies were then able to convince workers to work for less because people could survive on it still.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Yeah see I think that’s part of the wealth being sucked into the 0.1%
  - otteromkram 3y ago
    "To be fair..." If you leave this out of your response, do you believe that you're still conveying the same message? I do.
  - foogazi 3y ago
    This assumes they competed for the same jobs, is that true ? Why didn’t women entering the workforce lead to growth and more jobs being created ?
    - liquidpele 3y ago
      Because it’s not about the jobs, it’s about what salary people will settle for. If a family had to make X to live comfortable before, now you can do so with each of you making half that as long as it adds up to X. People shouldn’t settle for less, but they do even if only a few percent… where before people didn’t to the same degree because it had more immediate impact. This in turn is one of the several market forces that has contributed to deflated wages.
- jollofricepeas 3y ago
  Exactly. Manufacturing jobs used to exist. Manufacturing jobs used to exist in high numbers. Manufacturing jobs that didn’t require a high school education existed in high numbers. Manufacturing jobs that paid well and provided a pension and didn’t require high education existed in high numbers.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  That's an argument that should be increasing the number of dual parent households. If a family could be supported on a single income, then abandoning your family would have fewer consequences and thus seemingly more likely.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    No, what you would expect to see is a drastic decrease number in the number of children born. People are choosing not to have families at all. In late 1960 we peaked with somewhere around 47% of households having children. It is now around 26% In 1990 the number of married couples in the US started to flatline even though the population is up 40% since then.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      You're correct, but that's an orthogonal effect. The cost of raising children is definitely lowering the number of children. But it also should put pressure on parents to stay together once the children are conceived.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  A substantial reason for that is cultural change though. You can’t close to double the supply of something without expecting the price to go down (probably by something close to half).
lapcat 3y ago
> I’m not defending wealth disparity; simply suggesting there’s likely another cause for the marriage-rate collapse. In the past that you're talking about, women were not allowed to be independent, i.e., own property or obtain jobs that could support a family. So women had little choice but to get married. As long as non-marriage is a realistic choice for women, the marriage rates will never be as high as they were when society made women subservient.
- nec4b 3y ago
  >> In the past that you're talking about, women were not allowed to be independent, i.e., own property or obtain jobs that could support a family. That is maybe half true or not true at all. Women could own property and could be somewhat independent. Queen Elisabeth owned a whole country in the 16th century. In general not only women but men as well had a duty to their families and had to do what their parents demanded of them. And marriage was high on the list of things parents expected from their children whether they were male or female.
  - otteromkram 3y ago
    I think the person you're replying to was using the US as context (given the theme of the article), but you are correct that in certain regions of the world, women's rights to property ownership and inheritance were protected.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Queen Elisabeth owned a whole country in the 16th century. That's one women, and a strange example to cite, because my comment was in response to a discussion about the disparity of wealth ("kings and nobles had a similar wealth gap to their poorest married subjects as we see today between the 1% and the 99%). Obviously, queens have no trouble raising successful children, but that doesn't help anyone else in society. (It should be noted, however, that Elizabeth I was the so-called "Virgin Queen" who had no children.)
    - nec4b 3y ago
jollofricepeas 3y ago
Well… The reason for marriage collapse is lack of well paying manufacturing jobs. The American Economic Institute - https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 Brookings Institute study - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impa https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impa...
- userinanother 3y ago
  Which might be fine if after that men went home and took over traditional female tasks like cooking, cleaning and childcare. But they didn’t, and instead women ended up bringing in the money and having to do everything else while the husbands played video games and didn’t contribute. This resulted in women getting rid of the husband so they didn’t have an extra kid to take care of.
  - SirMaster 3y ago
    So then this creates a viscous cycle where the single woman will raise boys without a father role model, and those boys will go onto become poor husbands etc? This kind of feels like part of the problem here.
    - userinanother 3y ago
      But if the father is terrible and just another mouth to feed idk if any better
chongli 3y ago
Marriage was not just for the wealthy and nobles in the Middle Ages, or in the 1800s or in subsaharan Africa, etc. In the Middle Ages, children were an investment. You fed them and clothed them and raised them for just a few years before they started to pay off. As soon as they were physically able to walk and listen to instructions, children began to work, usually on the family farm. This human capital that a couple could grow themselves made marriage and child-rearing a highly profitable activity. It led to generational wealth, which marriage existed to secure and apportion. This is no longer true in modern city life. Children are a luxury good, not capital. They don’t produce any wealth for their parents. They simply consume enormous resources until they move out and start their own independent lives.

lvl102 3y ago

I find it ridiculous that healthcare is the greatest driver of cost of living but no one does anything about it. Doctors and nurses are overworked too. It’s the biggest scam going right now and all the politicians are in on it.

unnamed76ri 3y ago
You can place the blame for both things on the federal government. 1. Obamacare was promised to save families $2500 per year. Instead healthcare costs have predictably nearly doubled. 2. A few decades ago the government actively discouraged medical schools from enrolling enough would-be doctors because they had a misguided belief that the country would have too many.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  [flagged]
- lvl102 3y ago
  PPACA was one of the biggest policy fails and put us at a great competitive disadvantage. We were coming out of the Great Financial Crisis and the Rust Belt desperately needed manufacturing revival which the likes of Walmart forced abroad. At least some of that is reversing.
userinanother 3y ago
CPI says it’s 8% of your basket. Thats obviously not true

seaman1921 3y ago

nice excuse for not being able to maintain relationships. Going by your logic, maintaining one in poorer countries should be impossible

pylua 3y ago
I suspect there are other complicating factors in western cultures that may but additional stress on relationships, including blaming yourself instead of the environment for your situation.
aaomidi 3y ago
Being an average person in a poor country is very different from being poor in a rich country.
- em-bee 3y ago
  very much this. in "poor countries" people can have a lifestyle that matches their income, and they can survive on that. yes, many struggle, and they all would like to have a better life, but most can at least find an affordable place to live and don't go hungry. the problem in "rich countries" is that affordable places to live are missing. so being poor without government support to pay for a home causes you to be homeless.

threeseed 3y ago

> Everything stems from this. Almost everything. One issue is that although most Western countries have Paid Parental Leave (except for US) pregnancy still puts women at a career disadvantage. Because companies can sometimes find out that either (a) the person's role was unnecessary or (b) their replacement is better. And so especially for women in senior positions it's just not worth the risk. Another is around the cost and availability of child care. Current global shortage is a real issue.

em-bee 3y ago
so effectively that means that children themselves are a career disadvantage, which is a problem in itself that needs to be addressed because we can't sustain a society where having children is a negative. the equality part of the issue could be addressed with men getting equal parental leave, but it doesn't solve the actual problem. we really need to support parenting more, deemphasize the importance of career and emphasize the importance of having children.

unnamed76ri 3y ago

Everything does not stem from wealth inequality. Almost-everything wrong in US culture stems from selfishness. Which would include things you talked about. But it also includes people making selfish choices that bring about the end of their marriages (affairs, career, addictions).

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
? So the wealth inequality right? How do you think the wealthy got wealthy without selfishness? You seem to be implying that it isn't the inequality, but that all those poor people should stop being selfish. If only those poor people would stop being selfish, the wealth inequality wouldn't be a problem. LOL.
- hirundo 3y ago
  Wealth follows a Pareto distribution, and there are many Pareto distributions of things that are not caused by selfishness. https://www.thelangelfirm.com/debt-collection-defense-blog/2018/august/100-examples-of-the-80-20-rule/ https://www.thelangelfirm.com/debt-collection-defense-blog/2... If selfishness isn't a good general explanation for Pareto distributions, is there a reason that it's particularly explanatory for wealth distribution?
  - wenebego 3y ago
    They are choosing to further enrich themselves past what any single person can consume, instead of helping those around them, the definition of selfishness.
    - hirundo 3y ago
      You could get the same distribution if everyone is assigned a random amount of selfishness regardless of wealth, but some people are better at achieving their selfish goals than others, or just luckier. How could someone know that the result is primarily due to non-uniform selfishness? You could measure selfishness in small experimental scenarios and try to correlate it with the wealth of the subjects. Does that evidence exist?

pylua 3y ago

I strongly agree with this. It’s unbelievable to me that no media outlet can reach this conclusion.

dietsche 3y ago

This argument is non sequitor. If wealth inequality was the problem, couples would be forced by economics to work together to bring in more together than they could separately and to share resources like housing to reduce costs.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You think this isn't happening? The problem is now even dual incomes are not enough. So when squeezed, guess what, people get stressed and start crumbling.
actionfromafar 3y ago
Yes, if people are perfectly spherical economic machines.
lapcat 3y ago
From the article: > many women don't marry the father of their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability. If you think of marriage as purely a business partnership, would you go into business with someone who is unreliable? It's better to be a sole proprietorship than have your entire business brought down by a bad partner, where both partners are liable for the bad partner's actions and decisions.
- em-bee 3y ago
  the partnership started the moment they decided to have a child. so why even have a child with someone who is unreliable?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > the partnership started the moment they decided to have a child. Assuming they "decided". > so why even have a child with someone who is unreliable? Because you want a child? Sperm donor.
  - angmarsbane 3y ago

rychco 3y ago

I think the blame can be squarely placed on the cost of housing.

pleoxy 3y ago

You don't buy a marriage. If you try you are doing it wrong. Finances are a component of marriage, not the driver.

hirundo 3y ago
Finance used to be the driver of marriage, and now that it is less so there are fewer marriages.
- pleoxy 3y ago
  Till layoff do us part. How could I miss that it's fundamentally part of everyone's martial vows?? /S Marriage is about love, companionship, and children. Particularly because of children there will always be a significant economic component. But it's not the driver, it's a supporting component.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jollofricepeas 3y ago

Actually… You’re right. Wealth inequality means less jobs for the lower class. Specifically, less high paying manufacturing (labor) jobs. There’s lot of studies that show that marriage rates have decreased because of… - the decrease in union power - globalization (offshoring) - technological innovation Read them here: American Economic Institute - https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20180010 Brookings Institute - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impact-of-economic-and-technological-change-on-marriage-rates/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-marriage-gap-the-impa...

throwaway5Am1k 3y ago

At some point, you need to stop blaming (or giving power to) others for your situation, and take control for your own wellbeing. Who you marry is well within your control, and not the 0.1%. Take some responsibility, it's a good first step to improving your, and your community's situation. >Everything stems from this. No, not it doesn't. If you think that wealth distribution is the cause of all of today's problems, you need to do more exploration.

nec4b 3y ago

>> Everything stems from this. And how do you explain how very poor countries where the top 1% have wealth comparable to wealthy American peers and 99% of the country has less income American middle class had 100 years ago and they have no problems with marriages?

kthejoker2 3y ago
What rights do women have in those country? Can they vote? Drive? Get abortion? Get birth control? Do they have marital rape laws? Domestic abuse laws? Do they have no fault divorce laws? How do they handle common law property? Custody laws? Parental rights? What education do they provide to young women? What institutions do they have supporting female financial independence? What role does organized religion and specifically church leadership play in the day to day lives of women? The answer to your question is culture. Wealth simply fuels culture, it is not the source of it.
- nec4b 3y ago
  So in short I guess you agree not everything stems from wealth inequality.
  - kthejoker2 3y ago
    Oh absolutely (I didn't even read the whole thread till this comment!) Are we taking a vote? :)

perryizgr8 3y ago

I don't think this matters at all. The poorest in America are above average on the global level when it comes to quality of life. Yet the actual poorest citizens of the world seem to have no problems staying married and raising children.