Everyone agrees that single-parent homes are generally worse than two-parent homes, but most of the supporting evidence you provide here ignores the main factor at play, which is poverty. Drug abuse, crime, and other social issues are the result of poverty above anything else. That’s the cause of the problems, and the single parent thing simply correlates. People who are poor are more likely to have kids young, have kids outside of marriage and be single parents which in-turn makes them poorer.
It’s kind of like saying “well, poor people always have a couple of broken down cars parked on their front lawn. Therefor, all of the problems associated with being poor are due to the broken down cars parked on the front lawn”
This trick is often used by conservatives as a way to absolve us (society) of any responsibility to fix the systemic economic conditions (rugged capitalism) and instead blame the individual or to argue that we should all go back to church and live a more puritanical existence.
Systemic issues require systemic approaches, rather than finger waving or saying that the government should stop talking about racism.
For example, in developing many nations, one of the things that keeps a large portion of the population stuck in poverty is their high birth rates. The reason they have high birth rates is because girls get married and pregnant very young and have lots of babies. The reason girls do this is because they don’t have educational opportunities. It turns out, the more you can keep girls in school and into university, the later and fewer kids they’ll have, and the population will stabilize, not to mention the added productivity of all those educated young women.
Making sure everyone has access to education, economic opportunities and economic stability in their lives… that’s how you fix social problems.
Why do I think poverty causes girls to have babies earlier?
I was kind of saying the opposite, actually… that girls having babies earlier (and more of them) causes/exacerbates poverty. Girls are more likely to have kids earlier and unmarried when they drop out of school early and don’t go to college or have any other career opportunities, so it’s a cycle. The catalyst to break that cycle is more education and career opportunities.
Broke people are more likely to be single parents and single parents are more likely to be broke. These two things are both the cause and the result of each other. Your solution seems to be that the government should be less 'woke', which will somehow make men become more responsible.
My solution would be the government should do more to make sure people aren’t broke.
A statement like, "the government should do more to make sure people aren’t broke" is hard to disagree with. I guess what it comes to is precisely what the government does to make that happen. We currently have a government that loves to throw money at every problem and so far all this has done is make everything more expensive for everyone - especially poor people.
If we're talking about finishing school as a predictor of teen pregnancy, then thankfully people have actually studied that. My very own government in fact did on study on this very thing about 20 years ago and found (among other things) that children from two-parent homes did much better in school than those from single-parent homes, which in turn increased their social economic status.
So, if you're looking for a way to "make people less broke", it looks like having two parents in the house is a great start. It's also common knowledge that having two parents decreases the chance of teen pregnancy.
A Longitudinal Analysis of Family
Relationships and Children’s School Achievement in
That study does not show that the number of parents in a home causes better socioeconomic outcomes. The phenomenon you are mistakenly referring to has nothing to do with number of parents, and is well studied and understood at this point. Not surprising to see you being intentionally dishonest, Ken.
Simon, if you haven't even bothered to read to the end of the abstract in this paper, you obviously have no purpose here other than to be intentionally dishonest yourself. But don't worry, once again I've done the heavy lifting for you so you don't have to stress you brain too much:
"Two-parent households are associated with higher
socioeconomic status indicators, more support for the family, less parental depression, and less family
dysfunction than one-parent households. Two-parent households also had children who were less
hyperactive, more academically skilled, less anxious or depressed, and (judged by teachers) good in
academic standing."
We're talking about education here. In this country, those who are "more academically skilled" have a way better chance of not being poor.
What’s missing here is a real solution. Yes, poor people are more likely to be single parents and single parents are more likely to be poor, and single-parent households lead to more problems for the kids that grow up in them. None of that is controversial. The question is how to improve the situation. The ‘small government’ types will say it’s a matter of personal responsibility and ‘those people’ should pull their socks up and just ‘be better’.
I would say, the reasons for single parenthood are complicated, but it’s clear that alleviating poverty (strong social safety net or some kind of UBI), improving educational opportunities, and things like expanded paid parental leave and free childcare are some ways we can improve outcomes.
There are undoubtedly things government can do to help the situation. One simple thing might be to cut taxes (yes, I'm a "small government" type). In Canada these days, our solution is always to raise taxes which always hurts poor people more. Getting rid of the carbon tax could happen without establishing new departments and without years of planning and would help immediately. It could happen on Monday morning and everyone would be better off by Friday.
The bottom line though, is that there it always comes down to responsibility - personal and government. To pretend that it's one or the other is to be willfully blind. In this country we're in the midst of the most irresponsible government in our history, and it shows. This is not a left vs right thing either.
In terms of family and two-parent homes, I think it's tough to put the majority of that responsibility on the government, except for the fact that they refuse to promote it as a good idea (wouldn't want to offend single people, after all). This issue is all about personal responsibility.
Why would poor people have babies if they were supposedly so expensive that normal working Canadians can't afford them? Your argument defies it's own internal logic.
Also 1 is not more than 2, so your second premise there is going to be false more often than not.
Everyone agrees that single-parent homes are generally worse than two-parent homes, but most of the supporting evidence you provide here ignores the main factor at play, which is poverty. Drug abuse, crime, and other social issues are the result of poverty above anything else. That’s the cause of the problems, and the single parent thing simply correlates. People who are poor are more likely to have kids young, have kids outside of marriage and be single parents which in-turn makes them poorer.
It’s kind of like saying “well, poor people always have a couple of broken down cars parked on their front lawn. Therefor, all of the problems associated with being poor are due to the broken down cars parked on the front lawn”
This trick is often used by conservatives as a way to absolve us (society) of any responsibility to fix the systemic economic conditions (rugged capitalism) and instead blame the individual or to argue that we should all go back to church and live a more puritanical existence.
Systemic issues require systemic approaches, rather than finger waving or saying that the government should stop talking about racism.
For example, in developing many nations, one of the things that keeps a large portion of the population stuck in poverty is their high birth rates. The reason they have high birth rates is because girls get married and pregnant very young and have lots of babies. The reason girls do this is because they don’t have educational opportunities. It turns out, the more you can keep girls in school and into university, the later and fewer kids they’ll have, and the population will stabilize, not to mention the added productivity of all those educated young women.
Making sure everyone has access to education, economic opportunities and economic stability in their lives… that’s how you fix social problems.
Why do you think poverty causes girls to have babies earlier?
And why do you think that having one income in a home (rather than two) doesn't cause people to be poorer?
Why do I think poverty causes girls to have babies earlier?
I was kind of saying the opposite, actually… that girls having babies earlier (and more of them) causes/exacerbates poverty. Girls are more likely to have kids earlier and unmarried when they drop out of school early and don’t go to college or have any other career opportunities, so it’s a cycle. The catalyst to break that cycle is more education and career opportunities.
Broke people are more likely to be single parents and single parents are more likely to be broke. These two things are both the cause and the result of each other. Your solution seems to be that the government should be less 'woke', which will somehow make men become more responsible.
My solution would be the government should do more to make sure people aren’t broke.
A statement like, "the government should do more to make sure people aren’t broke" is hard to disagree with. I guess what it comes to is precisely what the government does to make that happen. We currently have a government that loves to throw money at every problem and so far all this has done is make everything more expensive for everyone - especially poor people.
If we're talking about finishing school as a predictor of teen pregnancy, then thankfully people have actually studied that. My very own government in fact did on study on this very thing about 20 years ago and found (among other things) that children from two-parent homes did much better in school than those from single-parent homes, which in turn increased their social economic status.
So, if you're looking for a way to "make people less broke", it looks like having two parents in the house is a great start. It's also common knowledge that having two parents decreases the chance of teen pregnancy.
A Longitudinal Analysis of Family
Relationships and Children’s School Achievement in
One- and Two-Parent Families
https://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/rhdcc-hrsdc/MP32-28-01-1-8-eng.pdf
That study does not show that the number of parents in a home causes better socioeconomic outcomes. The phenomenon you are mistakenly referring to has nothing to do with number of parents, and is well studied and understood at this point. Not surprising to see you being intentionally dishonest, Ken.
Simon, if you haven't even bothered to read to the end of the abstract in this paper, you obviously have no purpose here other than to be intentionally dishonest yourself. But don't worry, once again I've done the heavy lifting for you so you don't have to stress you brain too much:
"Two-parent households are associated with higher
socioeconomic status indicators, more support for the family, less parental depression, and less family
dysfunction than one-parent households. Two-parent households also had children who were less
hyperactive, more academically skilled, less anxious or depressed, and (judged by teachers) good in
academic standing."
We're talking about education here. In this country, those who are "more academically skilled" have a way better chance of not being poor.
What’s missing here is a real solution. Yes, poor people are more likely to be single parents and single parents are more likely to be poor, and single-parent households lead to more problems for the kids that grow up in them. None of that is controversial. The question is how to improve the situation. The ‘small government’ types will say it’s a matter of personal responsibility and ‘those people’ should pull their socks up and just ‘be better’.
I would say, the reasons for single parenthood are complicated, but it’s clear that alleviating poverty (strong social safety net or some kind of UBI), improving educational opportunities, and things like expanded paid parental leave and free childcare are some ways we can improve outcomes.
There are undoubtedly things government can do to help the situation. One simple thing might be to cut taxes (yes, I'm a "small government" type). In Canada these days, our solution is always to raise taxes which always hurts poor people more. Getting rid of the carbon tax could happen without establishing new departments and without years of planning and would help immediately. It could happen on Monday morning and everyone would be better off by Friday.
The bottom line though, is that there it always comes down to responsibility - personal and government. To pretend that it's one or the other is to be willfully blind. In this country we're in the midst of the most irresponsible government in our history, and it shows. This is not a left vs right thing either.
In terms of family and two-parent homes, I think it's tough to put the majority of that responsibility on the government, except for the fact that they refuse to promote it as a good idea (wouldn't want to offend single people, after all). This issue is all about personal responsibility.
Why would poor people have babies if they were supposedly so expensive that normal working Canadians can't afford them? Your argument defies it's own internal logic.
Also 1 is not more than 2, so your second premise there is going to be false more often than not.
Ironically, Hitler was also obsessed with creating families... just like you, Ken!
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2023/02/nazi-lebensborn-program-adopted-children-birth-origins/672962/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn