"Marriage doesn't matter" -> Everyone is married, one of the parents is usually stay-at-home
"We support the poor" -> Does everything in their power to ban multi-unit housing and density increases
It's incredible the ability for someone to hold one virtue in their head and live the exact opposite without any moral doubts.
In one well known city with a strong middle class, one might expect half of the students to be on the fastest math track available and half of the math faculty in the local high school to be Calculus teachers. The surrounding cities are not too much different.
I wonder what makes your city different?
I think a meaningful separation point might be the cost of living and more specifically the taxes raised from housing. If you have houses with an average price of $1M and houses with an average price of $300k, in the latter a public school system would simply have less to work with.
I wish people would look up the data on this sort of thing before confidently making claims.
https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-...
The absolute most I've herd in that direction are things like "People shouldn't feel like they need to get married if they don't want to" and "people should be supported if they want to leave an abusive marriage."
My gripe is that marriage, as an institution, ought to evolve to meet the people's changing needs, and by codifying it, the government locks in features (like the assumptions about gender or money or about who gets to make medical choices of certain kinds) which might then later fail to match up with how the people are living.
So it's not that I think it's irrelevant, it's just that I think it could serve us better if we kept a cleaner divide between what we practice socially and what we legislate. Whatever it is that you might need a reference to marriage for in the law, instead create separate decoupled systems for handling those things. More flexible that way.
We weren't going to bother with the marriage paperwork, because who cares what the state thinks. But then we did our taxes both ways and decided to swallow our pride and take the money.
I think the point of this article is that marriage works surprisingly (to a modern expectation) well. If you take everything out of it, then maybe the benefits would get stripped as well.
> Marriage is good, actually.
> Society treats unmarried women poorly, so much so that it damages their health.
It would be interesting to see if the results replicate with a sample of men.
I think we might live in different universes.
What my observations are right now is that many women are choosing to remain single because they are thriving just fine without a man in their lives.
Unmarried Men are turning into incels who are bitter, angry at the world and they are unquestionably socially damaged and ostracized.
Perhaps I'm struggling to see past my own perspective here though.
A year or so later, my wife decided she wanted to have a party and make a big deal about it--the primary driver for this decision was that she noticed that her female co-workers weren't treating her like a professional, and she suspected it was because they didn't see her as really married.
I didn't press the issue, we had a party, it was great. But apparently, women treat unmarried women differently in professional contexts.
Also, men do. Also, the IRS does. Also, parents do. Do nurses without a family end up working different hours? There are a lot of factors.
I'm just saying that it's really difficult to sort out whether being married helped these women because it's so great, or whether not being married harmed the other ones because they were treated poorly in ways we don't understand.
1. constitutes a denigration of the institution 2. actually materially causes the decline in marriage rates we see, especially among the economically exploited.
Poverty causes significant stress on couples which almost certainly explains the differences between the marriage rates of different classes in our society. I'm pretty sure that people having kids out of wedlock aren't doing it because they read about it in GOOP or whatever. In fact, further down this thread someone has posted a survey which suggests that people more likely to get divorced actually have a stronger belief in marriage than people less likely to. This suggests strongly that it isn't the opinions of the upper classes that actually cause divorces and points to other economic causes.
Except this gap is new. In 1979, marriage rates in the top four income quintiles were quite similar: https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-...
a) https://news.gallup.com/poll/316223/fewer-say-important-pare...
b) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marr...
Gee, I wonder if there is a material, economic, explanation for the stability of various family structures in different classes?
Eventually, almost everyone figures out for themselves what makes them happy and what doesn't. Moreover, there are plenty of unmarried people who aren't against marriage, who indeed want to get married, but their life circumstances haven't resulted in marriage, for various reasons. They don't need preachers.
Suppose nobody told you how difficult single parenthood is out of consideration for all the single parents, and you therefore decided to adopt. You figure it out two years later. Years have gone by, and dating is now very difficult. Is this somehow progressive!?
Marriage is hardly a secret.
> Suppose nobody told you how difficult single parenthood is
I think you can guess. Anyway, that's not a secret either.
People are aware of these things. The options are not sermonization or censorship; that's a false dichotomy.
Being vaguely aware that “single-parenthood is harder than two-parenthood” does not count as informed.
We're openly discussing it right now.
I'm truly baffled by the idea that it isn't openly discussed.
It's not though. There's no evidence of that.
In fact, the very claim "no one wants to impinge involuntarily single-parenthood households" is itself an ironic admission that the difficulties of single-parent households are obvious to everyone.
I believe I had good parents, but I still did lots of mistakes, costly mistakes that I wish I did not make. I am determined to teach all I can to my future children, if any, so that they don't have to learn it all by themselves again.
I think it is only sensible that such teachings are spread society wide, for children who have no good parental figures.
That's how it works. That's totally natural. It's human nature. You can't live your kids' lives for them, can't make their decisions for them. And sometimes kids end up better than their parents, despite their parents.
Besides, we're not really talking about parents preaching to their kids, are we? Parents can say whatever they want to their kids in the privacy of their own homes. You seemed to be referring to public preaching.
I don't care what is natural. I care what results in better outcomes. I know I could have had better outcomes if I was given better advice. In this particular circumstance learning by mistakes is exactly what you should not aspire to do, because it is so costly. One bad mistake can derail your entire life.
Teaching is not preaching. Facts are not values.
> I know I could have had better outcomes if I was given better advice.
This is what I dispute. You can give advice, but that doesn't mean anyone is going to take it. Especially not youths, who are omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal.
Otherwise you are either completely devoid of advice or you only get advised by someone who is selling you something.
EG: if I advocate marriage (and I do!) it's out of some small ounce of altruism. Economically I don't give half a shit about you and your life circumstances, I never met you and you have no impact on me.
But - if I have a chance of sharing something wholeheartedly that has made my life better and I believe will make most people's lives better - I share that out of some pleasure of perhaps helping someone.
That's what preaching is. When someone preaches to me, I may not listen but I appreciate what is driving them.
How out of touch can we truly be here? Marriage and having kids are two of the things universally pushed. We need solutions to the root problems leading to these "lower stats of marriage".
Becoming that person who believes he's performing altruism by telling his friends to have kids is not beneficial to anybody, and will likely prevent your relationship with them from developing any deeper than mutual transactions. Everyone KNOWS. What they do not know is whether they'll have a job tomorrow to afford their kids, whether they can overcome their upbringing to provide a healthy environment to raise their kids, etc.
So please, enough with the preaching. It might ironically be better if we had more people selling real solutions to these problems.
> Otherwise you are either completely devoid of advice or you only get advised by someone who is selling you something.
Oh preachers are selling something.
If so, you are not following the conversation. We are using preachers to mean those who provide moral/life guidance from their own experience. You can fall that "advocates" or whatever.
Alternatively, maybe you don't need any unsolicited advice and can make your own decisions.
However empirically I found that the more convinced one is that they don't need advice the more badly they actually need it.
Objectively, if I was deciding on whether I want to be married or not - I'd want to speak to a lot of old dudes who never married and those who did, and understand their experiences.
And I'd love to have heard from someone who loved single life like I did but found even deeper meaning in marriage.
Doesn't mean I would let them make the decision for me but I would want to know it. And if I was too dumb to ask those questions, I'd hope someone older and wiser would recognize that and help me
Empirically, I found the opposite. ;-)
> Objectively, if I was deciding on whether I want to be married or not
You decide that subjectively, not objectively. It's actually pretty simple: be single for a while, and see how it feels. If it sucks, then try not to be single. If it's great, then continue.
There's also the crucial matter of marriage being a mutual decision between two people, so one can't just decide to get married. I will offer some advice myself though FWIW: if you're not in love with someone, or they're not in love with you, then you probably shouldn't marry them.
Perhaps you are not a married dude... I found a huge difference between "not being single" and being married. The life long commitment backing the relationship adds a lot.
I wouldn't have expected that a priori. And I think maybe this isn't well understood.
Marriage isn't exactly a lifelong commitment anymore. Til divorce do we part.
In any case, as I discussed in my previous comment, the lifelong commitment can't be one-sided. You don't just make a lifelong commitment to a random person on the street. You have to meet the right person first. Any advice or preaching is irrelevant unless you happen to meet a potential spouse, in which case you may not even need advice, and things will just take their natural course.
To meet the right person, you need to BE the right person. Like, imagine you meet someone who wants to get married and have kids and you are unsure. They probably won't stick around to see if and when you are gonna figure it out for yourself.
Certainly, can work that way. Not optimal path.
The approach my parents took to my upbringing - or lack thereof.
Today at 42, I feel I have wasted most of my life and have achieved nothing worthwhile.
Frankly, I don’t feel like living anymore. It just doesn’t seem worth it.
The fact is that most people think they’re special, but they’re not. Modern American society gives people this illusion of choice, and they’re paralyzed by it. But for maybe 80% of people, it’s not going to get much better than getting married, having kids, and working to put food on the table. Socializing the next generation of workers is probably the most you’re cut out to do in this world.
Also in many cases to make bad decisions.
What if all your friends order the deep dish?
> The fact is that most people think they’re special, but they’re not.
True. IMO your advice and social pressure is not special.
> But for maybe 80% of people, it’s not going to get much better than getting married, having kids, and working to put food on the table.
My point is that those 80% can likely figure that out for themselves.
My observation is that they can’t, and make a lot of mistakes trying.
And of course none of us talk about that in public because we want to seem illiberal to our educated white American friends. For a long time I reconciled myself to that cognitive dissonance. But my wife is American, from a deep blue state. And it’s been eye opening to watch the aftermath of the 1960s social revolution on Americans outside the economic elite. It seems like everybody’s parents are divorced. They hang around any stable family they can find. Nobody is willing to guide their kids: they’re supposed to “discover themselves” on their own. The parents are too scared to impose values: this is what we expect, this is what constitutes a good life, this is what your purpose and function and role is. It’s a mess. If American culture has been this way 200 years ago we would be living in a third world country.
How do you figure? Did third world countries have current American culture before we did (I ask rhetorically)?
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Anyway, you avoided saying anything about third world countries, so maybe I need to repeat my question non-rhetorically.
Furthermore, you've made a very strange pivot: first you were talking about how "it’s been eye opening to watch the aftermath of the 1960s social revolution", but now you're talking about "what the US would be like if Appalachians had populated the whole country". The former and the latter seem to have very little or nothing to do with each other.
I’m using “third world country” as a generic reference to low standard of living. Actually third world countries, like the one I’m from, have different and even worse cultural problems, such as corruption. At least an Appalachian won’t demand a bribe to do his job. That makes it impossible to develop government and rule of law.
The 1960s social revolution turned up the individual self determination aspect of American culture to 11. Seeking pleasure, prioritizing personal satisfaction, rejecting social rules in favor of individualized morality, etc. That individualist streak has always been latent in American culture, but it’s most apparent in Appalachia. For example, even 100 years ago Appalachians had higher rates of multiple marriages than the rest of the country: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-appalachian-go-round-family-i...
There were lots of German immigrants in Appalachia, but they didn’t build the place the way they did the Midwest. Many went to established cities like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.
The distinctive culture of Appalachia isn’t a “myth.” For reasons tracing all the way back to the types of British immigrants who founded the place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed.
As Lee Kuan Yew says, culture is destiny: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20045923. If you want to understand what works and what doesn’t, look at the culture of the people who made things work contrasted against the people who didn’t.
Um, ok, here's a tip: if you want to be understood, maybe try using words like everyone else uses them, instead of repurposing existing words with your own private definitions?
> That makes it impossible to develop government and rule of law. [You seem to have deleted this sentence in editing.]
In other words, we're doing a lot right, otherwise we wouldn't attract so many immigrants, and thus our culture isn't as bad as it's portrayed by, ironically, immigrants.
> That individualist streak has always been latent in American culture, but it’s most apparent in Appalachia.
I... am speechless. I don't know how to respond to this, at least without saying something that will get me downvoted or flagged. So I guess our conversation may be over.
> For example, even 100 years ago Appalachians had higher rates of multiple marriages than the rest of the country
From your own linked article: "Whether this was due to divorce or higher mortality, I can’t say".
Also: "Even with these higher divorce rates, the share of Appalachian women currently married is nonetheless higher than women in the rest of the US."
Your article doesn't even show what you seem to want it to show.
> There were lots of German immigrants in Appalachia, but they didn’t build the place the way they did the Midwest.
I'm a lifelong Midwesterner. There's a very strong, deep rooted progressive streak in the Midwest, for example in Wisconsin and Minnesota, notably, which both have large populations of German ancestry. Frankly, your comments seem to be imbued with with overgeneralization and stereotypes.
A major reason why divorce rates have increased in the past 50+ years is that over this time period, women have achieved a great deal of financial independence from men. They don't have to be married anymore. They have more choices, can be more selective. This is, I would say, good. I don't want to go back to a past where women were subservient.
Referring to the law standard of living is the common usage of the term "third world country." Nobody is referring to alignment vis-a-vis NATO and the USSR.
> In other words, we're doing a lot right, otherwise we wouldn't attract so many immigrants, and thus our culture isn't as bad as it's portrayed by, ironically, immigrants.
We immigrated to the America of Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The country is still riding the inertia of that. Moreover, immigrants are generally insulated from the larger culture. Affluent, educated immigrants can count on joining the top quantile, where as the article observes marriage norms remain strong. And whether affluent or not, immigrants have their own communities with their own social structures. Rampant divorce in Oregon doesn't affect Bangladeshis in Queens.
> I'm a lifelong Midwesterner. There's a very strong, deep rooted progressive streak in the Midwest, for example in Wisconsin and Minnesota, notably, which both have large populations of German ancestry.
Yes, but it's mainly a collectivist form of economic progressivism. As we saw with 2012-2016 shifts, when cultural issues predominate, the alignment runs in the other direction.
> A major reason why divorce rates have increased in the past 50+ years is that over this time period, women have achieved a great deal of financial independence from men.
Except the women who have the most potential for independence have the highest marriage rates. The marriage rate of people in the top quantile is the same today as it was in 1979: https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-.... Marriage rates for women with a bachelor's degree were pretty close to those without a high school disagree in 1968: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08.... Today, marriage rates in the former group have dropped about 10 percentage points, but have been stable since the mid 1980s. (If you account for the fact that way more people have bachelors degrees today, there might not be much real change at all.) Meanwhile, marriage rates for the other groups have dropped 20-30 points and are still declining.
The data supports an alternative hypothesis. Social norms around marriage and taboos against divorce function as guard-rails that encourage normal people to do something that's good for them--getting and staying married. High-IQ, high impulse control people (the folks who go to college and end up in the top 20%) don't need those social guard rails, and have done fine without them. That is consistent with other social trends too--for example, college educated people are far less likely to be obese than everyone else.
You actually said you were were from a third world country in an earlier comment, though you deleted that bit soon thereafter.
Regardless, the point you still seem to be avoiding is that the US does much better economically than many other countries (whatever you want to call them), so there seems to be no empirical support for the idea that the cultures of those other countries are superior economically to the US culture, or that the current US culture will somehow result in a low standard of living.
> We immigrated to the America of Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The country is still riding the inertia of that.
I understand that you don't approve of the social changes that started in the 1960s, but it's now more than 50 years since the 1960s, so where is the economic doom, the low standard of living, that you suppose is caused by these social changes? When exactly do you predict that to happen? It appears to me that "still riding the inertia" is a convenient way of shrugging off the lack of empirical support for your belief.
I see that you've now dropped your discussion of Appalachia, which is probably for the best, because the equation of that with 1960s social changes has always seemed totally bizarre and nonsensical to me.
> Yes, but it's mainly a collectivist form of economic progressivism.
So you claim. I guess it's necessary for you to spin it that way to support your other beliefs.
> As we saw with 2012-2016 shifts, when cultural issues predominate, the alignment runs in the other direction.
I'm not sure what you mean by "shifts" or "alignment". I'd have to guess you're referring to elections, which are often decided by razor thin margins, then wrongly interpreted as significant cultural shifts.
> Except the women who have the most potential for independence have the highest marriage rates.
That's rather easy to explain: those at the top have the best selection of potential mates! Moreover, those at the top are much less likely to experience the kind of financial crises that can put a great strain on a marriage.
The wealthy always had financial independence. That's why nothing much has changed at the top. Now non-wealthy women have a lot more financial independence too.
There's been no cultural rejection of the institution of marriage. After all, as another commenter here astutely noted, there wouldn't have been such a massive battle over gay marriage if we didn't care about marriage. The point of divorce is to get out of a bad marriage, which is much more possible now than before. Also, people have more freedom now to delay marriage until they're ready for it, when they feel the timing is good. Some people prefer singlehood, even later in life, but they're the minority.
> do something that's good for them--getting and staying married.
I disagree that this is necessarily good for them. I don't want to recite my personal life on HN, but let's just say that I wish my parents had divorced a lot sooner than they did. And now they're much happier divorced than they were married, and I'm also happier as a result. If anything, the problem is that people get married too easily, and too young.
When people come together into larger and larger communities, then more specialization can take place over longer periods of time.
This is if you have a stable situation, of course.
Additionally, writing and schools are critical, so knowledge can be passed down systematically. Not randomly by "tribe elders."
And the schools should be fairly open, meaning being able to be open about what they say and teach. To be able to push boundries.
Ancient Athens had writing, they had schools. They passed down architecture and philosophy in regular schools. If you are in hunter/gatherer mode, nobody really is a schoolteacher. The smartest hunter/gatherer, even if he or she was legit Einstein smart, is going to be out hunting for rabbits or deers or planting rice. You must have "extra." Extra population that supports scholars. That's why in medieval times, the Catholic Church was the keeper of scholarship. They had a lot of priest for the laypeople, but they had money to support a lot of people who hung out and did intellectual work. And, those who WERE Einstein smart joined the Catholic Church, because they figured out where they should go with their talents, just like a super smart student today knows to apply to MIT or Harvard or Princeton, etc.
Once you have the modern type university (as opposed to one or two subjects like law and religion, for example), then it all starts to snowball. Technology starts to snowball. This is one of the reasons why the Western world surpassed all others. It started in ancient Greece, and continued. England created the first modern universities at Oxford and Cambridge. Some claim it was University of Al Quaraouiyine, Morocco, but it was not a modern style university in the subject offered.
This is why England dominated the world. It passed on knowledge from generation to generation until it was absolutely the top. England's geography of being an island and cut off from mainland Europe also helped a lot.
"Third world countries", meaning hunter/gatherer, tribal, herdsman cultures, just don't have the critical mass. They simply do not have the numbers of people to make it.
The USA is the 4th most populated nation on earth. With this great population, if one out of a million is a tippy-tippy top person in some area of study, then there are going to be 330 in each area of the USA, since we have 330 million population. In every endeavor.
On the other hand, if you are in a country that has 2 million people, your odds of having that one in a million person are 3 in every area of endeavor/industry. 330 vs 3 is a big difference when you are talking about near-einstein level.
Except in a very populous country, these exceptional people will find their way to other exceptional people (usually via universities), but those in "3rd world" countries who are 1 out of a million might be stuck doing subsistence farming or shit like that. And even IF one of those 1 out of a million in Sudan, let's say, were to somehow find their way out, they would move to England or USA or Germany or France, and not stay in their poverty country. And, those countries would GLADLY give them citizenship if university was to line up behind a super skilled person.
.
Culture is important. Population density is important. Inculcation of education is important (which is part of culture, I guess.). If a culture spurns education, they will never self-actualize.
People talk about islam and how they "saved" all the knowledge, and that's all great and stuff, but what have they done for us lately? The reality is that the super religious anti-education conservative elements of islam took over and fucked over the learned islamic peoples, and the conservatives of islam destroyed the smart part of islam. The same that is happening in the USA right now.
So to answer your question directly, their world countries did not "become" how they are. They are exactly like they were 10,000 or 50,000 years ago.
In order to change, you have to change. If someone is conservative and does not like change, then they will want to be like it was 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years ago. There are many, many people today who don't thing viruses or germs are a thing, for example. There are many who still believe in "gods"...like, 96% of the world believe that gods are real.
Meanwhile, the most educated do not go for that. You look at those with science degrees and only 50% believe in a god. Look at the NAS, Natural Acadamy of Science her in the USA where only top scientists are admitted, only 4% accept that a god exists.
So it's like that. Culture. Education. Knowledge. Population. Wealth. Etc.
It is a web of interconnected stuff that takes a long time to put together. England started Oxford in in 1200, and it took 800 years to make it to the peak of their Empire. Their empire fell apart because of the spread of knowledge to other parts of the world. Knowledge. Nothing else. Not war. Not WwI or WWII. Knowledge. Education.
How Abdus Salam was treated aside, Al-Biruni’s books languished for hundreds of years because basically no one read them.
Somehow the boomer generation convinced themselves, when young, that youth was wiser than age, and then neither their kids nor grandkids got any guidance.
I am however intrigued that you appear to have created an account just to reply to me. That is a novel experience.
Anyway, yes, I have a soft spot for people who are obviously smart but stuck in a rut, and contemplating what I view as a form of suicide (not reproducing). We need smart people to reproduce. So I feel an obligation to rattle your cage a bit, but some people might take that the wrong way. Hence the new account.
Maybe your illness gets you off the hook, but Stephen Hawking had children.
One thing I find ironic is that you’ve adopted a Christian worldview in a strange way - through your suffering you are saving your children from damnation.
I say tried because while my wife got pregnant, we found out a few days ago that it was an anembryonic gestation. My wife passed what embryo there was today.
We aren’t exactly rich and my parents helped with the funds.
But you know what? It’s all been worth it. Hell, I’ve been stressed like crazy because I want to change careers back to using my degree in computer science instead of the photography I’ve been doing and I don’t have the time to get my skills up to snuff because of her…
But my daughter makes me the happiest I’ve ever been in my life. It’s a joy I never had before. I wish I could somehow let my friends that have decided not to have children experience it.
Regarding wanting to get back in to CS: I became a dev in my mid 30s, and found my first job in a country where I don't speak the language. Received plenty of rejections and embarrassed myself during both whiteboard and take home coding challenges.
Even when I went above and beyond for a take home challenge, the offer went to someone else. But something stuck out to the hiring director (grit, belligerence in the face of the odds?) and I was offered a position mainly on my intangibles.
Sometimes I tend over think and catastrophize, but every now and then I catch lightning in a bottle and defiantly ignore that skeptical voice. So I hope you can take something from my rant.
I've been working on a VR game in my free time so right now my hope is to (somehow) finish that this year and then at least I'll have something to show...which I guess might be that lightning in a bottle that I need.
I challenge this. With 1.5 billion people the cream of highly motivated and intelligent people will of course rise to the top. Anyone not razor focused on getting out, getting up, and pushing successful traits wouldn't make it; survivor bias.
Mormons have strict social rules that work well a lot of the time, but hurt people who fall outside the majority. They have abnormally high average happiness compared to other groups in the US, but they also have an abnormally high suicide rate.