5 ms·

As far as I can tell, the proximate cause of the discussion was a speech a few weeks ago by Marco Rubio, a Republican Senator and seen as a rising star in the p

As far as I can tell, the proximate cause of the discussion was a speech a few weeks ago by Marco Rubio, a Republican Senator and seen as a rising star in the party. For the 50th anniversary of LBJ's "War on Poverty", he argued that the biggest thing the government could to do reduce poverty is to promote marriage: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=958d06fe-16a3-4e8e-b178-664fc10745bf http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?... This seems to have produced some revived discussion of a more general initiative by some conservatives (especially social conservatives) to shed the "conservatives don't care about the poor" perception by arguing that certain conservative social policies are in fact poverty-reduction mechanisms, and should be renewed with vigor. Promoting two-parent families is one of the main ones that's seen as a "win-win" strategy: conservatives can put forth a poverty-reduction strategy that also aligns with their other views, allowing them to back away from the more hardline (and favored by the libertarian wing) view that poverty-reduction is just not the government's business at all, while also avoiding a "liberal" approach to it. Here's a recent column from someone favorable towards the position: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/is-marriage-promotion-possible/ http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/is-marriage-prom..., who also wrote a book proposing a kind of "new conservative" politics that aims to reposition conservatism as addressing the concerns of the working class: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307277801/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307277801&linkCode=as2&tag=zzggm-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307277801/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

yummyfajitas 13y ago
You can go a bit further back. For the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about correlation between income inequality and various negative social outcomes. Recently, a number of economists have discovered that if you run the exact same analysis but substitute single motherhood for inequality, you get much stronger correlations. For example: http://www.economics21.org/commentary/great-gastby-curve-revisited-part-1 http://www.economics21.org/commentary/great-gastby-curve-rev... Now the argument which economist sorts are actually making is a more complicated one - an argument by contradiction. Specifically, if (a) inequality mongers believe their analysis is valid and (b) single motherhood is a bigger factor than inequality according to the analysis, then it logically follows that those inequality mongers should focus their efforts on the bigger problem (single motherhood). But obviously an argument by contradiction is too complex for the political process.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  then it logically follows that those inequality mongers should focus their efforts on the bigger problem Not necessarily. They should run a cost benefit analysis - a bigger problem that costs much more to fix (or isn't obviously soluble) might not be the right target. Anyway, if Marco Rubio explicitly applies his analysis to support gay marriage, I will applaud him, but I don't see that happening - not if he hopes to win the GOP nomination for anything.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Fair point. But they should at least acknowledge that (by their methodology) the large problem is single motherhood, with inequality being a minor tangent. Intellectually honest Obama: "Getting women to marry reliable men before having children is the defining challenge of our time, but solving that problem is difficult and not worth the effort, so I'll talk about inequality instead."
- SiVal 13y ago
  The author claims that poor women suffer a lack of opportunities to "marry up", but the majority of poor women have always married men from roughly the same social group. The men had to compete for the attention of the women by demonstrating reliability, consistent earning power, lack of vices, and so on. The difference is that now there is a new competitor that few lower-class men can compete with: Government. True, marrying the government means that Dad will spend all his time at work, but he'll always provide for the family, never leave you for another woman, never get laid off, never come home drunk and beat you for fooling around with another man.... He'll be fine with you fooling around with other men--in fact, he'll raise any children that might result without complaint. He'll be an utterly patient, undemanding, loyal and dependable husband and father, if a bit distant. Those losers hanging around talking trash with their buddies just can't compete with government for women's long-term attention. The better suitor government becomes, the more women choose to marry up by marrying government. And men don't need to marry to get sex. Women married to government all have open marriages, and if he's not married, nobody will limit his range of options by demanding loyalty. He can get more of what he wants while giving less. And it's not as if a man's neighbors will shame him for abandoning his girlfriend with his children, plunging them into poverty. No, government will take better care of them than he ever would have, so everyone knows she'd be worse off if he DID marry her. I'm not suggesting taking vast segments of society who have been assured since birth that they would never have the responsibility to support themselves (much less others), and cutting off their life support. It would be a nightmare, and it brings up all sorts of other questions about people competing with automation and other economic changes that can't be blamed on government. But it's amazing how much the author writes about the economic calculus of marrying without ever mentioning the still-growing 800lb government participant in the marriage market.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

You can go a bit further back. For the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about correlation between income inequality and various negative social outcomes. Recently, a number of economists have discovered that if you run the exact same analysis but substitute single motherhood for inequality, you get much stronger correlations. For example: http://www.economics21.org/commentary/great-gastby-curve-revisited-part-1 http://www.economics21.org/commentary/great-gastby-curve-rev... Now the argument which economist sorts are actually making is a more complicated one - an argument by contradiction. Specifically, if (a) inequality mongers believe their analysis is valid and (b) single motherhood is a bigger factor than inequality according to the analysis, then it logically follows that those inequality mongers should focus their efforts on the bigger problem (single motherhood). But obviously an argument by contradiction is too complex for the political process.

auctiontheory 13y ago
then it logically follows that those inequality mongers should focus their efforts on the bigger problem Not necessarily. They should run a cost benefit analysis - a bigger problem that costs much more to fix (or isn't obviously soluble) might not be the right target. Anyway, if Marco Rubio explicitly applies his analysis to support gay marriage, I will applaud him, but I don't see that happening - not if he hopes to win the GOP nomination for anything.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Fair point. But they should at least acknowledge that (by their methodology) the large problem is single motherhood, with inequality being a minor tangent. Intellectually honest Obama: "Getting women to marry reliable men before having children is the defining challenge of our time, but solving that problem is difficult and not worth the effort, so I'll talk about inequality instead."
SiVal 13y ago
The author claims that poor women suffer a lack of opportunities to "marry up", but the majority of poor women have always married men from roughly the same social group. The men had to compete for the attention of the women by demonstrating reliability, consistent earning power, lack of vices, and so on. The difference is that now there is a new competitor that few lower-class men can compete with: Government. True, marrying the government means that Dad will spend all his time at work, but he'll always provide for the family, never leave you for another woman, never get laid off, never come home drunk and beat you for fooling around with another man.... He'll be fine with you fooling around with other men--in fact, he'll raise any children that might result without complaint. He'll be an utterly patient, undemanding, loyal and dependable husband and father, if a bit distant. Those losers hanging around talking trash with their buddies just can't compete with government for women's long-term attention. The better suitor government becomes, the more women choose to marry up by marrying government. And men don't need to marry to get sex. Women married to government all have open marriages, and if he's not married, nobody will limit his range of options by demanding loyalty. He can get more of what he wants while giving less. And it's not as if a man's neighbors will shame him for abandoning his girlfriend with his children, plunging them into poverty. No, government will take better care of them than he ever would have, so everyone knows she'd be worse off if he DID marry her. I'm not suggesting taking vast segments of society who have been assured since birth that they would never have the responsibility to support themselves (much less others), and cutting off their life support. It would be a nightmare, and it brings up all sorts of other questions about people competing with automation and other economic changes that can't be blamed on government. But it's amazing how much the author writes about the economic calculus of marrying without ever mentioning the still-growing 800lb government participant in the marriage market.