The reality is two people living together. It’s much cheaper you have someone to support you and government policy just can’t replace somebody legitimately caring about your well-being and willing to sacrifice for you
I'd suggest reading Gramm, Ekelund and Early's 'The Myth of American Inequality' to all the deniers that 'welfare' is a large part of the problem. It's filled with data that show otherwise.
Yet, single mothers produce 63% of prison inmates, 60% of suicide, 9x more dropouts, 20x more poverty, and consume 90% of welfare. They are absolutely horrible. It's insane to think that a child's life can be optimized by one person. SMH
0:26:26 Recent data shows that same-sex female marriages have more DV than heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, same-sex male marriages have very little DV compared to its female counterpart. Women don’t want to be in those situations, obviously. However, this data suggests that it’s not the men causing most of the DV in marriages.
She claims that giving money to single parent households doesn't largely incentivize single parent homes. Then why did the massive increase in single parent households coincide with the advent of the welfare state in the 1960s and 1970s? I'm glad she did this necessary research, but I speculate that her modern liberal/progressive values are getting in the way of her going all the way in drawing conclusions and generating potential mitigation strategies.
That's the argument you see all the time, the timing. Welfare is not a complete zero factor, but it is a very small factor. Coincidence is the answer to your question. Right at that same time, IQ is what became the dominant success defining factor. Technical jobs began to correspond positively to higher wages, & that trend continues precipitously today.
@@Buffalonie Other countries have a welfare system that does not say if you take this money you have to kick the man out of the home. Key difference in Scandinavian countries the incentive is to stay together. Welfare played a key role in USA as did culture, globalization and other issues.
This researcher is oblivious and ignorant with respect to what she calls "cultural norms" (more accurately called "cultural values"), because she willfully didn't want to conclude that cultural values are a massive driver of single parent homes. But the issue isn't going to go away until you put your finger on the actual source. And biased researchers will not do this because it's in fact more than one cultural value that's driving cultural disparities. And the biggest reason this path of investigation is blocked for researchers is because if you conclude that the bigger problem is cultural values and not systemic discrimination, that would undermine a whole raft of political values and show them to be the factless religion that it is claimed to be.
"Two parents" aren't a luxury or a privilege. Its a choice based on values and the result of commitment. Witness the difference between North America and the UK and the rest of the world.
She is speaking in circles. On the one hand, she says income transfers are not to blame, but on the other hand, she says we should keep transfers low. If this is the case, you would only put single parent households in poverty while not solving the problem. How can it if transfers are not to blame?
Oh the author is very ’protected’ if she thinks the 30 % increase of households aren’t women escaping negative and abusive partners.... i’m college educated and was raised sheltered i know first hand that it 100 % the case . No one WANTS to do it alone when in economic stress. Only very richwomen go about having a child alone willingly.
I found the last bit of this podcast to be quite odd, mainly in its false conclusions. It cites one very incompletely understood example of what some scholars believe to be an ancient society in which the community raised kids...which is largely guess work. Then we hear that nuclear families are a relatively new human invention. It's at least many hundreds of years in practice, & it objectively works better than any other system, including this hippie commune. We, of course, cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from studying this commune, as it's not transferable/scalable to the U.S. Data is clear that introducing adults that are not the biological parents to child rearing is better than a single-parent option, but sends negative data points like sexual & physical assault skyrocketing.
Yet, single mothers produce 63% of prison inmates, 60% of suicide, 9x more dropouts, 20x more poverty, and consume 90% of welfare. They are absolutely horrible. It's insane to think that a child's life can be optimized by one person. SMH
Only because you made it very clear point to say that single moms are not the cause of their children ending up in the justice system why did you omit the same statement at fathers are responsible for keeping them out. If one is true then the other is as well.
What she, & her book, does say (mostly between the lines), is that criminality is largely culture based. She steers clear of overtly talking about this mostly because of the absolutely toxic/cancelable racial component.
Yet, single mothers produce 63% of prison inmates, 60% of suicide, 9x more dropouts, 20x more poverty, and consume 90% of welfare. They are absolutely horrible. It's insane to think that a child's life can be optimized by one person. SMH
Ms. Kearney is trying very hard to not blame the individuals/parents for not getting married or staying together. She repeatedly says that American society needs to support two parent home. Does she really believe that married life today is harder than it was 100 years ago? Yet, somehow couples were able to stay together despite having less education, harsher work conditions, more children, and less resources. Why? Maybe it was religious/faith taboo against divorce (A factor she said she did not study. Curious?). Possibly because single-parent households weren't subsidized.
I think it's pretty clear that our broad cultural changes, very much including the religion point you make here, is by far the largest factor explaining the staggering increases in single-parent households. Tons of research has looked into the welfare aspect, & it continuously shows a very small causal factor. Not zero, but small...now the triggering effect that welfare may have had is another question. I think there's more meat there, at least possibly, but here too, I don't think it's the main factor/triggering mechanism. As women become more educated, they value leisure time much more than they used to...men do as well. They start families much later in life because they prioritize their 20's & even 30's to focus on their careers/education/leisure over building families. Young people, especially women, are now coming of age & thinking "Great, now it's time to focus on me", when young women used to think "Now it's time to secure a husband & build a family"...this has become a well understood cultural phenomenon which acts as a repeating machine.
Marriage IS harder than it was 100 years ago! 100 years ago, (white) women and men were forced into clearly defined roles--which were reinforced by society.
IMHO You should not trust content on RUclips that does not let people voice their opinion. Comments may not always be pretty but are a great place to find out that you have a bias. This Discussion's actually pretty good. She just has some obvious biases. People are happy to point them out. But they talk about some of those biases. The reasons they might exist, he mentions that this subject is very outside the liberal political zeitgeist.
Drawing from the information I've collected, it seems that a viable approach would involve offering mothers salaries for child-rearing and engaging a full-time nanny to provide support in the absence of the other parent. Nevertheless, it's crucial to recognise that this strategy may inadvertently lead to stigmatisation, particularly for women who aren't mothers or cannot have children. Therefore, a more equitable solution might be to extend salaries to all women.
All of her "solutions" involve spending tax money. The right answer is to phase out the welfare system...all of it. When a girl knows she'll be on her own as an unmarried mother, she'll wait until she has a husband before having kids.
The reality is two people living together. It’s much cheaper you have someone to support you and government policy just can’t replace somebody legitimately caring about your well-being and willing to sacrifice for you
I'd suggest reading Gramm, Ekelund and Early's 'The Myth of American Inequality' to all the deniers that 'welfare' is a large part of the problem. It's filled with data that show otherwise.
Yet, single mothers produce 63% of prison inmates, 60% of suicide, 9x more dropouts, 20x more poverty, and consume 90% of welfare. They are absolutely horrible. It's insane to think that a child's life can be optimized by one person. SMH
Single mothers consume 90% of welfare. Thus, welfare should require voluntary sterilization to align freedom with responsibility.
0:26:26
Recent data shows that same-sex female marriages have more DV than heterosexual marriages.
Furthermore, same-sex male marriages have very little DV compared to its female counterpart.
Women don’t want to be in those situations, obviously. However, this data suggests that it’s not the men causing most of the DV in marriages.
She's to PC to really get to the bottom of this important issue. We need a unapologetic approach to this subject backed by data, and no bias.
She claims that giving money to single parent households doesn't largely incentivize single parent homes. Then why did the massive increase in single parent households coincide with the advent of the welfare state in the 1960s and 1970s?
I'm glad she did this necessary research, but I speculate that her modern liberal/progressive values are getting in the way of her going all the way in drawing conclusions and generating potential mitigation strategies.
Don’t be too hard on her. I’m sure writing this book was not easy for her
That's the argument you see all the time, the timing. Welfare is not a complete zero factor, but it is a very small factor. Coincidence is the answer to your question. Right at that same time, IQ is what became the dominant success defining factor. Technical jobs began to correspond positively to higher wages, & that trend continues precipitously today.
Except all other developed countries have a welfare system. So how does that explain single parent households in the US alone?
Also: red states have higher divorce rates and more teen pregnancies on average than blue states.
@@Buffalonie Other countries have a welfare system that does not say if you take this money you have to kick the man out of the home. Key difference in Scandinavian countries the incentive is to stay together. Welfare played a key role in USA as did culture, globalization and other issues.
This researcher is oblivious and ignorant with respect to what she calls "cultural norms" (more accurately called "cultural values"), because she willfully didn't want to conclude that cultural values are a massive driver of single parent homes.
But the issue isn't going to go away until you put your finger on the actual source.
And biased researchers will not do this because it's in fact more than one cultural value that's driving cultural disparities.
And the biggest reason this path of investigation is blocked for researchers is because if you conclude that the bigger problem is cultural values and not systemic discrimination, that would undermine a whole raft of political values and show them to be the factless religion that it is claimed to be.
"Two parents" aren't a luxury or a privilege. Its a choice based on values and the result of commitment. Witness the difference between North America and the UK and the rest of the world.
She is speaking in circles. On the one hand, she says income transfers are not to blame, but on the other hand, she says we should keep transfers low. If this is the case, you would only put single parent households in poverty while not solving the problem. How can it if transfers are not to blame?
Oh the author is very ’protected’ if she thinks the 30 % increase of households aren’t women escaping negative and abusive partners.... i’m college educated and was raised sheltered i know first hand that it 100 % the case . No one WANTS to do it alone when in economic stress. Only very richwomen go about having a child alone willingly.
I found the last bit of this podcast to be quite odd, mainly in its false conclusions. It cites one very incompletely understood example of what some scholars believe to be an ancient society in which the community raised kids...which is largely guess work. Then we hear that nuclear families are a relatively new human invention. It's at least many hundreds of years in practice, & it objectively works better than any other system, including this hippie commune. We, of course, cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from studying this commune, as it's not transferable/scalable to the U.S. Data is clear that introducing adults that are not the biological parents to child rearing is better than a single-parent option, but sends negative data points like sexual & physical assault skyrocketing.
Yet, single mothers produce 63% of prison inmates, 60% of suicide, 9x more dropouts, 20x more poverty, and consume 90% of welfare. They are absolutely horrible. It's insane to think that a child's life can be optimized by one person. SMH
Single mothers consume 90% of welfare. Thus, welfare should require voluntary sterilization to align freedom with responsibility.
Only because you made it very clear point to say that single moms are not the cause of their children ending up in the justice system why did you omit the same statement at fathers are responsible for keeping them out.
If one is true then the other is as well.
Rewrite for clarity.
What she, & her book, does say (mostly between the lines), is that criminality is largely culture based. She steers clear of overtly talking about this mostly because of the absolutely toxic/cancelable racial component.
Yet, single mothers produce 63% of prison inmates, 60% of suicide, 9x more dropouts, 20x more poverty, and consume 90% of welfare. They are absolutely horrible. It's insane to think that a child's life can be optimized by one person. SMH
Ms. Kearney is trying very hard to not blame the individuals/parents for not getting married or staying together. She repeatedly says that American society needs to support two parent home. Does she really believe that married life today is harder than it was 100 years ago? Yet, somehow couples were able to stay together despite having less education, harsher work conditions, more children, and less resources. Why?
Maybe it was religious/faith taboo against divorce (A factor she said she did not study. Curious?). Possibly because single-parent households weren't subsidized.
I think it's pretty clear that our broad cultural changes, very much including the religion point you make here, is by far the largest factor explaining the staggering increases in single-parent households. Tons of research has looked into the welfare aspect, & it continuously shows a very small causal factor. Not zero, but small...now the triggering effect that welfare may have had is another question. I think there's more meat there, at least possibly, but here too, I don't think it's the main factor/triggering mechanism. As women become more educated, they value leisure time much more than they used to...men do as well. They start families much later in life because they prioritize their 20's & even 30's to focus on their careers/education/leisure over building families. Young people, especially women, are now coming of age & thinking "Great, now it's time to focus on me", when young women used to think "Now it's time to secure a husband & build a family"...this has become a well understood cultural phenomenon which acts as a repeating machine.
Marriage IS harder than it was 100 years ago! 100 years ago, (white) women and men were forced into clearly defined roles--which were reinforced by society.
Thank you for putting these on the Internet is people are complaining too much just disable comments
IMHO You should not trust content on RUclips that does not let people voice their opinion.
Comments may not always be pretty but are a great place to find out that you have a bias.
This Discussion's actually pretty good. She just has some obvious biases. People are happy to point them out. But they talk about some of those biases. The reasons they might exist, he mentions that this subject is very outside the liberal political zeitgeist.
Drawing from the information I've collected, it seems that a viable approach would involve offering mothers salaries for child-rearing and engaging a full-time nanny to provide support in the absence of the other parent. Nevertheless, it's crucial to recognise that this strategy may inadvertently lead to stigmatisation, particularly for women who aren't mothers or cannot have children. Therefore, a more equitable solution might be to extend salaries to all women.
All of her "solutions" involve spending tax money. The right answer is to phase out the welfare system...all of it. When a girl knows she'll be on her own as an unmarried mother, she'll wait until she has a husband before having kids.