5 ms·
Yeah, this is bad. Great political commentary, but god-awful HN fodder. We pay people to have babies, so people have babies. We create a financial reward for p
by DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Yeah, this is bad. Great political commentary, but god-awful HN fodder.
We pay people to have babies, so people have babies. We create a financial reward for people not to marry, so they don't marry. Film at 11. This entire discussion is just regurgitated political arguments from the 60s, and not much has changed, frankly, except the destruction of the family unit and social fabric in poor families.
This author wants to make the case that society is to blame (Gee, never saw that one coming) and that we should all strive to be more compassionate and understanding. He does so by some weird idea that marriage is a contract and that by looking at statistics the other side is confusing correlation with causality. Then he rambles into the idea that promoting marriage for stability is getting things ass-backwards. You can draw your own conclusions here looking at 2 thousand years of history.
So there's not much here except for a long apologia for programs that never worked, but it's definitely damned long-winded.
All part of a larger narrative in the states regarding income inequality and the poor, which is how the left plans to split the country, continue the divisiveness, and get their guys elected for the next few years or so.
So really just more of the same stuff you can find on any politics site. I have no idea why it's reached such prominence on HN.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoAre you saying that the political left wing are planning to raise issues of income equality and the poor and claim that there is an unfair division in society? Well, this is incredible news, and I must say, highly unexpected.
- pekk 13y agoPeople have babies for reasons which are not at all unique to this place or time, and will have them anyway. People marry or don't marry for reasons which are also independent of governmental policy.
- anonymoushn 13y agoJust to be clear, your stance is that paying people to do something will have no impact on the number of people who choose to do it?
- jamesaguilar 13y agoHe is probably merely saying that child elasticity is not very high. I doubt he is making the more extreme claim that it is zero. Also, it's not like having a child is profitable. It's just not as expensive as it could be. Your claim that we are paying people to have children is a little misleading.
- yarrel 13y agoHow many people are being paid to comment on this thread?
- judk 13y agoWith all the dogecoin talk and similar, perhaps many.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- snowwrestler 13y agoPhrase it the opposite way to get the truth: paying people to do something won't necessarily have a significant impact on the number of people who choose to do it. Why? Because money is not the only factor people take into account when making decisions.
- sliverstorm 13y agonot much has changed, frankly, except the destruction of the family unit and social fabric in poor families Are those things not big deals?
- guard-of-terra 13y agoMaybe (s)he expected positive changes for a change?
- bitwize 13y agoNo. Read your Wilkinson and Pickett. Income inequality is what splits the country. It's what causes the divisiveness. Policies which promote income equality lead to a more harmonious and healthier society. Wealth redistribution is the easy and correct solution to the poverty problem. It's been shown to get results where conservative and libertarian dogma have failed.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoWealth redistribution is the easy and correct solution to the poverty problem. Given that poverty is defined as income before transfers, it can't possibly be a solution. Even if you completely eliminated consumption poverty with wealth redistribution (hint: we nearly have), the official poverty rate would be unaffected. If wealth redistribution induced people to reduce their earned income, it would increase the official poverty level. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=24126 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=24126 Incidentally, you should read your Scott Winship (I linked to him elsewhere in the thread). He runs similar analysis to Wilkinson and Picket, but finds much stronger correlations between single motherhood than income inequality.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago> Given that poverty is defined as income before transfers . . . I have never heard of anyone who defines it this way or cares about this definition. What most people who care about poverty care about is that the poor do not get to consume "enough" goods and services, for some level of enough. The amount they earn is of secondary interest.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoThe US government defines poverty in terms of income before (some) transfers. E.g., social security is included, section 8 is not. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measur... People on the left generally consider this definition to be the important one and dismiss conservatives when they point out that consumption poverty is nearly a solved problem. See also the obsessive focus on income inequality rather than the much lower consumption inequality. Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that we should define poverty this way - construct a fixed basket of goods and declare that anyone who acquires it or has the ability to do so is not poor. But I'm very much in the minority on this.