Liberalism Destroys Families?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Adam Smith


As long as we are talking about personal histories, let me throw in mine. I'm 48. Dad worked, mom stayed at home. They owned a house in a good suburban school district, three bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths, unfinished basement, no garage, no air conditioning (added years later), no fireplace, etc. Dad sent all three of us to the state university, bought new cars about every seven years, had no debt aside from the mortgage. Pretty similar so far, right?

How do thing look today? I do statistical work, by brother works in computer services. Neither job even existed forty years ago because changes in technology allowed the economy to gradually shift away from manufacturing and toward services.

My sister is a teacher. Her husband is a policeman. Both unionized. Pretty much middle class right? The house they own, with the same county schools we attended, has four bedroom, 2 1/2 baths, finished basement, two car garage, air conditioning, and a fireplace. The cars they own are much more expensive than what my parents had (even after accounting for inflation), but are safer, less polluting, last longer, have more features, and have a much better repair record than the cars my parents bought. (Much of the change being due to better quality Japanese imports, which reduced US jobs, but made consumers better off.)

I hope you enjoyed your rant about the GOP, but you missed the fact that the nature of the economy has shifted over time, and that as incomes rise consumers demand more and better services.

Former Senator Moynihan once argued that by far the biggest effect on families was the refusal to make welfare payments available to families in which an able bodied worker was present, since this broke up or prevented the formation of families in order to maintain welfare payments.

Well, I always enjoy my rants about the GOP, but you just made my point for me. The very nice life your sister and her husband enjoy together is achieved by both of them working. Now, could they enjoy just as nice a life if only the brother-in-law worked? Is your sister only working because she's a raving feminist? I suspect the answers are no, and no. And that's my point: the two-income family has arisen from economic necessity; basically, your sister and her husband have to work to achieve their desired level of economic security, whereas, back in teh golden days of liberalism, your dad could achieve that for his family all by himself.

Is it really completely the fault of the GOP? Nah. But the complex social forces that led to these changes have much more to do with conservative ideology -- especially union-busting and the decline of social entitlements -- than liberalism.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Black Cat

My assumption was that if out of wedlock births increase dramatically, lots of those couples who concieved children didn't marry. That means an accompanying increase in single parent households. Your assumption is all those out of wedlock births didn't result in more single parent households. My "assumption" is logical, yours is not.

Please read what I write - "assumptions that might be right, might be wrong, but there are nothing in the stat that supports your claim" - You say your claim is logical, but you forget to prove it, you just assume it. To quote Casey Ryback (or rather one of the bad guys ) more or less perfect "Assumption is the mother of all fckups".

And where in that quote from my OP did I say all those mommies were or would be at home cuddling their kids all the time?

If they weren't, then were are they then ?

Children are better off with 2 parents and an extended family, and children are better off when those parents stay together until the kids have sufficiently grown emotionally so any divorce doesn't hurt them as bad. And children are better off when at least 1 parent is there most of the time as opposed to both parents off at work.

Do y'all agree?

Then policies that induce more out of wedlock births and more divorce have negative consequences, true?

Nope, me and my sister lived with our father after our parents divorce and all did fine.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Is it really completely the fault of the GOP?

It's hardly the fault of the GOP at all, since the trend began before the GOP began to attack the unions in the 80s. What is the fault of the GOP is attacking women who are working to help their families as the root of all evil in our society. The GOP is kicking people while they're down, but they aren't responsibile for them being down in the first place. Their corporate masters are.

[Japher]

And that's my point: the two-income family has arisen from economic necessity; basically, your sister and her husband have to work to achieve their desired level of economic security, whereas, back in teh golden days of liberalism, your dad could achieve that for his family all by himself.

Is it really completely the fault of the GOP? Nah. But the complex social forces that led to these changes have much more to do with conservative ideology -- especially union-busting and the decline of social entitlements -- than liberalism.

The whole reason I am moving is to make certain that my wife doesn't have to work if she doesn't want to when our kid is born. The two salary economy has destroyed family values and the "American way of life" that the republicans so gaurd against.

However, as a Republican and a respectful admirer of Libertarianism I see greedy ppl and those traditional values as the core to such a destruction of family values. Why did the couple decide that both should work? To ensure a better future for the children, and also something to do with WWII. Still, the values that are being destroyed are the same values that caused the problem. It has nothing to do with GOP, Dems, Libs, etc... It just has to do with "progress"

One thing I think is strange is that new technology they have were doctors can treat kids in their classrooms from a robot like thing and a screen. They say it save time; kids don't have to leave school, parents don't have to leave work, etc... stating that a doctors visit can cost up to 4 hours of lost time. Lost time? How about time spent with you child?!

Family values caused the problem, and now they are getting trampled on because of good work ethics and a competitive economy. Libertarians? No, those weren't their values.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No more the need to scrimp and save when Moms and Dads simply can both work in order to afford the $300,000 home and $40,000 car.

Hell, I'd love to find a nice 4/2 house for $300k. Around here a 2 bedroom apartment downtown runs $450k and even if you buy a 30 year old town house out in the burbs, like I did, it will still run you $400k-$500k. I dream of owning a house with a real yard but they run in the $600k-$800k price range.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And where in that quote from my OP did I say all those mommies were or would be at home cuddling their kids all the time? Children are better off with 2 parents and an extended family, and children are better off when those parents stay together until the kids have sufficiently grown emotionally so any divorce doesn't hurt them as bad. And children are better off when at least 1 parent is there most of the time as opposed to both parents off at work.

No, I don't agree, because the ideal rarely exists. Kids are not better off in a two parent home if: one of the parents is abusive, a drug abuser, the parents hate each other, etc. Such toxic atmospheres are far worse for a child then being in a single parent home.

Children are not better off with one of the parents at home if the family needs two incomes to keep the house, to provide for the family, to pay for medical bills, to build up a college fund, etc.

The reality is that life is far more complex than conserviatves would have us believe. People have all sorts of valid reasons for making the choices they do, and instead of cursing people for trying to make the best of poor circumstances, conservatives should actually try to help people, or failing that, at least stop from hindering those who would help others.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
They dont want to get married because they want welfare paid by others. You were saying something about it being their business? Seems they've made it our business. But unless they're liberal, I dont blame them, I blame the liberals who've made it our business via government.

Liberals aren't keeping them from being married. If anything is keeping them from being married its the economic situation. If they have the option to make things better and they're willing to get a divorce to do it, how is that hurting them?

Yes, it's your business as much as it is any other American. But liberals aren't hurting families by providing welfare benefits. They're hurting you, according to yourself, so quit making this about hurting families. This is about you wanting to pay less taxes.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
And that's my point: the two-income family has arisen from economic necessity; basically, your sister and her husband have to work to achieve their desired level of economic security, whereas, back in teh golden days of liberalism, your dad could achieve that for his family all by himself.

Is it really completely the fault of the GOP? Nah. But the complex social forces that led to these changes have much more to do with conservative ideology -- especially union-busting and the decline of social entitlements -- than liberalism.

First, my point in mentioning cars and houses is that the desired level of economic security has increased since our parents' generation.

Second, I don't see how you can blame union busting for the problem given that unions never accounted for more than about 30 percent of the workforce IIRC, and that the decline in unionization was brought about more by larger forces in the economy I mentioned (trade, growth of services) than by any anti-union policies.

I am not sure exactly what your are referring to by social entitlements.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I highly recommend these two books, and not just because I sang karaoke with the author.

The Way We Never Were
and
The Way We Really Are

Oh sure, was it "Le Marsailles", "The Internationale", or the "Soviet National Anthem"?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's hard to be free when you are dependent on people who want to control you. What kind of elaboration do you need? If you depend on your family then there will be pressure on you to conform to the person that they want you to be.

A couple of points:

1. You are arguing with a tautology. If you are dependent on someone, you are of course not free.

2. You insist that this somebody wants to control you. Any arguments to back that up?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Its a natural effect, nature abhors a vacuum.

If that's true, I would like to know how this great void we call "outer space" exists.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Given a larger space to work with it gets filled with more junk. Given a larger income the amount spent will increase to the point where safety cushion monies resemble very closely those tight margins of yesteryear.

That's just more BAM and tired cliche.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
2. You insist that this somebody wants to control you. Any arguments to back that up?

It must be a cultural thing.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin

Little facts like that are ignored by the right since they are not convient to their ideology.

I've never heard anyone right or left claim out of wedlock births were lower 230 years ago. As I told chegitz, pointing to situations separated by a vast gulf in time, culture, and circumstances is illogical. Chegitz has effectively argued that liberal welfare policies have not increased out of wedlock births etc because out of wedlock births were higher 230 years ago in a newly liberated colony still suffering the effects of foreign rule.

After a country sees stability long enough those effects wear off and we can make better comparisons. So, compare out of wedlock births etc in the decades before the welfare state and the decades since. You guys keep wanting to compare modern times with the age of monarchies and expansion. Hell, you'd think slavery would have destroyed the black American family but it took liberalism to do that. Compare out of wedlock births for blacks before and after the welfare state.

BC

Please read what I write - "assumptions that might be right, might be wrong, but there are nothing in the stat that supports your claim" - You say your claim is logical, but you forget to prove it, you just assume it. To quote Casey Ryback (or rather one of the bad guys ) more or less perfect "Assumption is the mother of all fckups".

Thats all very nice, but a big increase in out of wedlock births means an increase in single parent households. Why? Because not all of those out of wedlock births ended up with the father and mother marrying soon after (or before) the birth of their kid. But since you cant see that in the stat, here:

http://www.parentswithoutpartners.org/Support1.htm

If they weren't, then were are they then ?

Asleep, doing chores, keeping house, etc. What do you think stay at home moms do now? Read what I write? Where did I write mommies would be cuddling their kids all the time if they weren't in the workforce?

Nope, me and my sister lived with our father after our parents divorce and all did fine.

I didn't ask about you, I asked about a child, a generic or average child. My question doesn't require your personal experience, it requires the experiences of many. And we identify that information by looking at stats comparing 2 parent families with single headed households and the picture is pretty grim. Higher crime, poverty, drug abuse, etc in the single headed households.

chegitz

No, I don't agree, because the ideal rarely exists. Kids are not better off in a two parent home if: one of the parents is abusive, a drug abuser, the parents hate each other, etc. Such toxic atmospheres are far worse for a child then being in a single parent home.

Children are not better off with one of the parents at home if the family needs two incomes to keep the house, to provide for the family, to pay for medical bills, to build up a college fund, etc.

The reality is that life is far more complex than conserviatves would have us believe. People have all sorts of valid reasons for making the choices they do, and instead of cursing people for trying to make the best of poor circumstances, conservatives should actually try to help people, or failing that, at least stop from hindering those who would help others.

Oh boy, you did the same thing BC did. You don't look at a specific case, you look at as many as you can to discern trends. Are you really going to tell us kids growing up in single headed households are just as well off as kids in 2 parent households?

Kid

Liberals aren't keeping them from being married. If anything is keeping them from being married its the economic situation. If they have the option to make things better and they're willing to get a divorce to do it, how is that hurting them?

Liberals are inducing out of wedlock births by handing out money to people who dont get married. Tell the guy who just impregnated his girlfriend you will pay the bills if he doesn't marry her and see alot of guys take you up on your offer.

Yes, it's your business as much as it is any other American. But liberals aren't hurting families by providing welfare benefits. They're hurting you, according to yourself, so quit making this about hurting families. This is about you wanting to pay less taxes.

Liberals are hurting all of us with their well-intentioned insanity. Join the conservatives, they are doing enormous harm with their drug wars.

[GePap]

I find the notion that welfare "ruins families" is a strange fantasy. Vast cuts in welfare payments and a huge number of greater roadblocks have done nothing to "bring the familiy back", so the only sane judgement would be to state that Welfare's effect on "the American Family" as a whole was limited, specially since only a small portion of poor Americans were ever elligible for welfare in the first place, so the collapse of middle class families had 0 to do with welfare in the first place.

In the black comunity the vast encarceration rates of black men probably had more to do with the breakdown of the family unit that welfare ever did. The notion of welfare queens was always a sort of sick fantasy. People scamming the system might have made real money, but the vast number of average people on welfare were stil dirt poor, and I doubt anyone says "hey, I get a check from the government! Let me stay dirt poor!"

[GePap]

Originally posted by Adam Smith


First, my point in mentioning cars and houses is that the desired level of economic security has increased since our parents' generation.

Isn't that a requirement of the consumer economy? You can't run it if people all of a sudden become satisfied with what they have.