Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

News you want to discuss. Threads should start with a reference or fact. Straight opinion is better housed in "The Lounge" below.
BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby BrooklynBilly » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:10 am

It really is amazing that with all this talk of income disparity and poverty we hardly ever hear this sad story told. Democrats may well be afraid of upsetting their captive, single female voters.


Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families
Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family.

By ROBERT MARANTO And MICHAEL CROUCH
April 20, 2014 5:38 p.m. ET
Suppose a scientific conference on cancer prevention never addressed smoking, on the grounds that in a free society you can't change private behavior, and anyway, maybe the statistical relationships between smoking and cancer are really caused by some other third variable. Wouldn't some suspect that the scientists who raised these claims were driven by something—ideology, tobacco money—other than science?

Yet in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers, fewer reporters, and no one in the executive branch of government directly addresses what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century.

The two-parent family has declined rapidly in recent decades. In 1960, more than 76% of African-Americans and nearly 97% of whites were born to married couples. Today the percentage is 30% for blacks and 70% for whites. The out-of-wedlock birthrate for Hispanics surpassed 50% in 2006. This trend, coupled with high divorce rates, means that roughly 25% of American children now live in single-parent homes, twice the percentage in Europe (12%). Roughly a third of American children live apart from their fathers.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. From economist Susan Mayer's 1997 book "What Money Can't Buy" to Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" in 2012, clear-eyed studies of the modern family affirm the conventional wisdom that two parents work better than one.

"Americans have always thought that growing up with only one parent is bad for children," Ms. Mayer wrote. "The rapid spread of single-parent families over the past generation does not seem to have altered this consensus much."

In an essay for the Institute for Family Studies last December, called "Even for Rich Kids, Marriage Matters," University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox reported that children in high-income households who experienced family breakups don't fare as well emotionally, psychologically, educationally or, in the end, economically as their two-parent-family peers.

Abuse, behavioral problems and psychological issues of all kinds, such as developmental behavior problems or concentration issues, are less common for children of married couples than for cohabiting or single parents, according to a 2003 Centers for Disease Control study of children's health. The causal pathways are about as clear as those from smoking to cancer.

More than 20% of children in single-parent families live in poverty long-term, compared with 2% of those raised in two-parent families, according to education-policy analyst Mitch Pearlstein's 2011 book "From Family Collapse to America's Decline." The poverty rate would be 25% lower if today's family structure resembled that of 1970, according to the 2009 report "Creating an Opportunity Society" from Brookings Institution analysts Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill. A 2006 article in the journal Demography by Penn State sociologist Molly Martin estimates that 41% of the economic inequality created between 1976-2000 was the result of changed family structure.

Earlier this year, a team of researchers led by Harvard economist Raj Chetty reported that communities with a high percentage of single-parent families are less likely to experience upward mobility. The researchers' report—"Where Is the Land of Opportunity?"—received considerable media attention. Yet mainstream news outlets tended to ignore the study's message about family structure, focusing instead on variables with far less statistical impact, such as residential segregation.

In the past four years, our two academic professional organizations—the American Political Science Association and the American Educational Research Association—have each dedicated annual meetings to inequality, with numerous papers and speeches denouncing free markets, the decline of unions, and "neoliberalism" generally as exacerbating economic inequality. Yet our searches of the groups' conference websites fail to turn up a single paper or panel addressing the effects of family change on inequality.

Why isn't this matter at the center of policy discussions? There are at least three reasons. First, much of politics is less about what you are for than who you are against, as Jonathan Haidt, a New York University psychology professor, noted in his popular 2012 book "The Righteous Mind." And intellectual and cultural elites lean to the left. So, quite simply, very few professors or journalists, and fewer still who want foundation grants, want to be seen as siding with social conservatives, even if the evidence leads that way.

Second, family breakup has hit minority communities the hardest. So even bringing up the issue risks being charged with racism, a potential career-killer. The experience of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a cautionary tale: Moynihan, who had a doctorate in sociology, served in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration as an assistant secretary of labor and in 1965 published a paper titled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," warning about the long-term risk that single-parent households pose for black communities. He was attacked bitterly, and his academic reputation was tarnished for decades.

Finally, there is no quick fix. Welfare reform beginning in the mid-1990s offered only modest marriage incentives and has been insufficient to change entrenched cultural practices. The change must come from long-term societal transformation on this subject, led by political, educational and entertainment elites, similar to the decades-long movements against racism, sexism—and smoking.

But the first step is to acknowledge the problem
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby Marie » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:14 am

BrooklynBilly wrote:Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty
The Wall Street Journal
April 20, 2014
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... ding_now_1

So why are you right-wingers always so quick to declare war and create even more single-parent families, Billy? Why do you keep voting those warmongering bastards in? Answer me that.

Oh, I see -- you forgot there's more than one way for families to wind up with only one parent besides the woman gets knocked up and the father runs away.

And you think WE would forget because the Murdoch Street Journal made another unsupported allegation against liberals.

No, we understand all the ways this situation can occur. No one's ignoring the problem, just like no one's ignoring crime in the inner city -- or any of the other canards you righties put about, for that matter. The liberal publications have been full of articles about these social dysfunctions for years.

The problem is, we can't get you indifferent righties to help. In fact the only time you ever bring them up is to use poor people's problems to demonstrate how unworthy of help you think they are.

People in trouble don't need you to turn them into political footballs, Billy, they're getting kicked by life enough already.

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby dejapig » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:48 am

BrooklynBilly wrote:Democrats may well be afraid of upsetting their captive, single female voters.

So if I'm a female single-parent Democrat and a Democratic politician points out that I'm "less likely to experience upward mobility" because I'm a single parent, I'm going to vote for a Republican who pretty much already condemns all of my life choices? That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not denying the effects of family change on inequality, but your conspiracy theory as to why the issue doesn't get more traction is absurd. Democrats breaking up families or keeping people poor for votes? On the plus side, if everyone is better off married, this seems to bolster the case for gay marriage.
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss
Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby Badmojo » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:46 am

I think a slut shaming, anti-choice, anti minimum wage, anti pay equality, anti marriage equality view point is the perfect solution to all of this. If only the dirty masses would just turn to Jebus all would turn out OK. Just open up the poor houses and let's go back to the early 20th century.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/po ... .html?_r=0

“Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Mr. Obama said, to a chorus of approving murmurs from the audience. “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”


On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has frequently returned to the topic of parenting and personal responsibility, particularly for low-income African American families. Speaking in Texas in February, Mr. Obama told the mostly black audience to take responsibility for the education and nutrition of their children, and lectured them for feeding their children “cold Popeyes” for breakfast.

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby BrooklynBilly » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:07 am

dejapig wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:Democrats may well be afraid of upsetting their captive, single female voters.

So if I'm a female single-parent Democrat and a Democratic politician points out that I'm "less likely to experience upward mobility" because I'm a single parent, I'm going to vote for a Republican who pretty much already condemns all of my life choices? That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not denying the effects of family change on inequality, but your conspiracy theory as to why the issue doesn't get more traction is absurd. Democrats breaking up families or keeping people poor for votes? On the plus side, if everyone is better off married, this seems to bolster the case for gay marriage.


Since I first became aware of politics at around 17 I have believed that Democrats have every interest in keeping people poor and dependent on government. Expanding the entitlement state keeps people in thrall to government, keeps them complacent and ensures their reliability at the polls. Nothing I have seen Democrats do over the past 50 years or so has swayed me from that position.

I have to go to jury duty see ya later.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby Badmojo » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:18 am

BrooklynBilly wrote:
dejapig wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:Democrats may well be afraid of upsetting their captive, single female voters.

So if I'm a female single-parent Democrat and a Democratic politician points out that I'm "less likely to experience upward mobility" because I'm a single parent, I'm going to vote for a Republican who pretty much already condemns all of my life choices? That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not denying the effects of family change on inequality, but your conspiracy theory as to why the issue doesn't get more traction is absurd. Democrats breaking up families or keeping people poor for votes? On the plus side, if everyone is better off married, this seems to bolster the case for gay marriage.


Since I first became aware of politics at around 17 I have believed that Democrats have every interest in keeping people poor and dependent on government. Expanding the entitlement state keeps people in thrall to government, keeps them complacent and ensures their reliability at the polls. Nothing I have seen Democrats do over the past 50 years or so has swayed me from that position.

I have to go to jury duty see ya later.


Boilerplate. What you posted doesn't really push the conversation forward. We already know you think these things, so what? What's the solution? How about being for something instead of against it?

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby dejapig » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:36 am

BrooklynBilly wrote:Since I first became aware of politics at around 17 I have believed that Democrats have every interest in keeping people poor and dependent on government.

That's absurd. Poor people don't spend money and boost the economy, which is in the best interest of every politician. If you can run on a record of adding jobs and boosting the economy (the rising tide lifting all ships), you're in.
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss

Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby Marie » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:08 pm

dejapig wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:Since I first became aware of politics at around 17 I have believed that Democrats have every interest in keeping people poor and dependent on government.

That's absurd. Poor people don't spend money and boost the economy, which is in the best interest of every politician. If you can run on a record of adding jobs and boosting the economy (the rising tide lifting all ships), you're in.

Besides, Dems bail out companies to save jobs, which bolsters the ecomomy, whereupon righties stand by helplessly whining , "Wait -- that it's not the government's affair... that it's "unconstitutional"... we should LET THE WEAK ONES DIE."

Righties like Billy spread imaginary conspiracies on the part of liberals to keep people poor -- while we hear Republicans' ACTUAL WORDS regarding weakened citizens and weakened companies: "LET THEM DIE."

"LET THEM DIE," that is -- unless they're banks and insurance companies in trouble. Then we should take even more from the poor to bail out fat-cat executives. Nothing unconstitutional about government bailouts THEN.

Righties violate their own stated principles when it suits them, and stand stubbornly behind what they said when any of those "others" would like a little piece of he American dream. Don't even get me started on voting restrictions designed to feather their own nests even more. And intruding into women's health care choices and roadblocking pay equity, so poor women will stay poor.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to see that it's REPUBLICANS WHO WANT THE POOR TO STAY THAT WAY. It's all out in the open.

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

User avatar
The Icy Commander
Grammar-impaired troll
Posts: 2399
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:01 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby The Icy Commander » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:58 pm

BrooklynBilly wrote:It really is amazing that with all this talk of income disparity and poverty we hardly ever hear this sad story told. Democrats may well be afraid of upsetting their captive, single female voters.


Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families
Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family.

By ROBERT MARANTO And MICHAEL CROUCH
April 20, 2014 5:38 p.m. ET
Suppose a scientific conference on cancer prevention never addressed smoking, on the grounds that in a free society you can't change private behavior, and anyway, maybe the statistical relationships between smoking and cancer are really caused by some other third variable. Wouldn't some suspect that the scientists who raised these claims were driven by something—ideology, tobacco money—other than science?

Yet in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers, fewer reporters, and no one in the executive branch of government directly addresses what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century.

The two-parent family has declined rapidly in recent decades. In 1960, more than 76% of African-Americans and nearly 97% of whites were born to married couples. Today the percentage is 30% for blacks and 70% for whites. The out-of-wedlock birthrate for Hispanics surpassed 50% in 2006. This trend, coupled with high divorce rates, means that roughly 25% of American children now live in single-parent homes, twice the percentage in Europe (12%). Roughly a third of American children live apart from their fathers.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. From economist Susan Mayer's 1997 book "What Money Can't Buy" to Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" in 2012, clear-eyed studies of the modern family affirm the conventional wisdom that two parents work better than one.

"Americans have always thought that growing up with only one parent is bad for children," Ms. Mayer wrote. "The rapid spread of single-parent families over the past generation does not seem to have altered this consensus much."

In an essay for the Institute for Family Studies last December, called "Even for Rich Kids, Marriage Matters," University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox reported that children in high-income households who experienced family breakups don't fare as well emotionally, psychologically, educationally or, in the end, economically as their two-parent-family peers.

Abuse, behavioral problems and psychological issues of all kinds, such as developmental behavior problems or concentration issues, are less common for children of married couples than for cohabiting or single parents, according to a 2003 Centers for Disease Control study of children's health. The causal pathways are about as clear as those from smoking to cancer.

More than 20% of children in single-parent families live in poverty long-term, compared with 2% of those raised in two-parent families, according to education-policy analyst Mitch Pearlstein's 2011 book "From Family Collapse to America's Decline." The poverty rate would be 25% lower if today's family structure resembled that of 1970, according to the 2009 report "Creating an Opportunity Society" from Brookings Institution analysts Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill. A 2006 article in the journal Demography by Penn State sociologist Molly Martin estimates that 41% of the economic inequality created between 1976-2000 was the result of changed family structure.

Earlier this year, a team of researchers led by Harvard economist Raj Chetty reported that communities with a high percentage of single-parent families are less likely to experience upward mobility. The researchers' report—"Where Is the Land of Opportunity?"—received considerable media attention. Yet mainstream news outlets tended to ignore the study's message about family structure, focusing instead on variables with far less statistical impact, such as residential segregation.

In the past four years, our two academic professional organizations—the American Political Science Association and the American Educational Research Association—have each dedicated annual meetings to inequality, with numerous papers and speeches denouncing free markets, the decline of unions, and "neoliberalism" generally as exacerbating economic inequality. Yet our searches of the groups' conference websites fail to turn up a single paper or panel addressing the effects of family change on inequality.

Why isn't this matter at the center of policy discussions? There are at least three reasons. First, much of politics is less about what you are for than who you are against, as Jonathan Haidt, a New York University psychology professor, noted in his popular 2012 book "The Righteous Mind." And intellectual and cultural elites lean to the left. So, quite simply, very few professors or journalists, and fewer still who want foundation grants, want to be seen as siding with social conservatives, even if the evidence leads that way.

Second, family breakup has hit minority communities the hardest. So even bringing up the issue risks being charged with racism, a potential career-killer. The experience of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a cautionary tale: Moynihan, who had a doctorate in sociology, served in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration as an assistant secretary of labor and in 1965 published a paper titled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," warning about the long-term risk that single-parent households pose for black communities. He was attacked bitterly, and his academic reputation was tarnished for decades.

Finally, there is no quick fix. Welfare reform beginning in the mid-1990s offered only modest marriage incentives and has been insufficient to change entrenched cultural practices. The change must come from long-term societal transformation on this subject, led by political, educational and entertainment elites, similar to the decades-long movements against racism, sexism—and smoking.

But the first step is to acknowledge the problem



Big stunner.
Been saying for decades the worst thing that ever happened to the black family unit was the Democrat party.

User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby Badmojo » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:27 pm

The Icy Commander wrote:Big stunner.
Been saying for decades the worst thing that ever happened to the black family unit was the Democrat party.


You could start with getting the name of the party correct and then give us some insight on your thinking.

User avatar
Marie
Certified Fan
Posts: 31874
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby Marie » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:39 pm

Badmojo wrote:
The Icy Commander wrote:Big stunner.Been saying for decades the worst thing that ever happened to the black family unit was the Democrat party.

You could start with getting the name of the party correct and then give us some insight on your thinking.

Been saying THAT for decades, LOL. (I remember Dems, beginning in the '80s, calling C-SPAN to point out that mistake to the channel's younger hosts.)

-Marie-
You find out what someone is really like in "battle," and Olbermann is who you want to be in a foxhole with, Patrick said. "On the air, we had each others' backs," said Olbermann.
-David Goetzl: "Keith Olbermann, Dan Patrick still brothers long after ESPN's 'Big Show'"; MediaPost blog, 4-6-2012


Image

User avatar
Badmojo
Posts: 1935
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby Badmojo » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:46 pm

It's old an juvenile.

Anyway, according to Icy black people shouldn't have access to affordable health care because of freedom or some shit but that's OK, someone throws up an article about the importance of the family unit and now we find out the only thing wrong with being poor is their' parenting skills. If we could just fix that then we can all be John Galts.

Every liberal democracy has a strong social safety net, usually much better than ours. Sweden pays it's parents 1 year of parental leave (last I checked, that's a lot of white folks) but here we subsidize a little insurance and some think we've turned into some sort of home wrecking nanny state. It's a joke. Family units are important, very important but if there is one thing poverty breeds is further poverty and like it or not, there are quite a few single parent households lingering in poverty and to just identify that as the only problem is disingenuous.

We are also experiencing income inequality mobility gaps (regardless of family status) unrivaled in the past 100 + years. Our minimum wage is consistently outdated and hopefully one day it will be linked to inflation. We as a country need to spend more time and money on the first year of a child's life, not wait and throw them in jail for illegal drug use that unfortunately even though blacks and whites use drugs at almost the same rate, it's black youths who have their lives destroyed by hanging that over their neck the rest of their lives plus jail time that whites often don't have to face.

But any real attempt to do anything and it's called out as the supposed racist policies of the "democrat party".

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby dejapig » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:12 am

The Icy Commander wrote:Big stunner.
Been saying for decades the worst thing that ever happened to the black family unit was the Democrat party.

Do tell. There's nothing in that article linking black families, poverty, and Democrats, but I'd be fascinated to have you connect those dots for us.
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss

Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

User avatar
IrishEyes
Certified Fan
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:52 pm
Location: The Midwest

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby IrishEyes » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:45 am

Single Parent Families-Road to Poverty? Duh! That's why we advocate sex education in schools, affordable and available birth control, and legal and safe abortions. The right works so hard to defund and eliminate these and then wrings their hands over single parent families.... unbelievable.

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Single Parent Families-Road To Poverty

Postby BrooklynBilly » Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:30 pm

IrishEyes wrote:Single Parent Families-Road to Poverty? Duh! That's why we advocate sex education in schools, affordable and available birth control, and legal and safe abortions. The right works so hard to defund and eliminate these and then wrings their hands over single parent families.... unbelievable.


I don't believe access to birth control or sex education have much to do with the current situation. As the statistics state in 1960 more than 97% of whites and 76% of black families were intact and that was an era when birth control and abortion were not readily available. Family breakdown has accelerated and things like divorce or single motherhood that used to be shameful are now considered acceptable.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet


Return to “What Story Are YOU Talking About?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests