|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 22 2017 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right. So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain?
Because their solution is wrong. Unless NR has some editorials about wages for housework?
|
On August 22 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote:
Her analysis is also unnecessarily inflammatory, which undercuts its message. The economic pressure top be in a two person house hold can result is one party being saddled with under cutting their earnings to care for the child. This seems effective at its face, but promoting this as the standard disadvantages parents who do not have partners. Sometimes parents just die, so its not about personal responsibility. The widowed parent shouldn't be rushing out there to find a partner just to make ends meet. Social safety nets and services should exist for single parents and should be as much a priority and two parents house holds.
But this purely economic standpoints is myopic. We are talking about raising an entire human being, not just a economic money sink. There are considerations beyond simple providing sufficient money for food and shelter. And that can be best accomplished with a support system, though it does not need to be two parents.
Trust me, P6. Everyone here already knows you're a romantic.
|
On August 22 2017 12:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right. So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain? Because their solution is wrong. Unless NR has some editorials about wages for housework?
You're putting the cart before the horse. Why is paying a wage for housework the proper solution to the problem of single parent households?
|
On August 22 2017 12:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote:
Her analysis is also unnecessarily inflammatory, which undercuts its message. The economic pressure top be in a two person house hold can result is one party being saddled with under cutting their earnings to care for the child. This seems effective at its face, but promoting this as the standard disadvantages parents who do not have partners. Sometimes parents just die, so its not about personal responsibility. The widowed parent shouldn't be rushing out there to find a partner just to make ends meet. Social safety nets and services should exist for single parents and should be as much a priority and two parents house holds.
But this purely economic standpoints is myopic. We are talking about raising an entire human being, not just a economic money sink. There are considerations beyond simple providing sufficient money for food and shelter. And that can be best accomplished with a support system, though it does not need to be two parents. Trust me, P6. Everyone here already knows you're a romantic.
My romantic view of the world does not change the reductionist nature of the typical Marxist in viewing any relationship as only a economic problem. Both child development science and childhood education back this up as well. Providing food and shelter is not sufficient. But considering her views of long term committed relationships, I'm not surprised that those views bleed directly into parenting.
|
On August 22 2017 13:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 12:54 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right. So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain? Because their solution is wrong. Unless NR has some editorials about wages for housework? You're putting the cart before the horse. Why is paying a wage for housework the proper solution to the problem of single parent households?
Because if you get paid for raising kids you can raise kids instead of working?
|
On August 22 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:54 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right. So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain? Because their solution is wrong. Unless NR has some editorials about wages for housework? You're putting the cart before the horse. Why is paying a wage for housework the proper solution to the problem of single parent households? Because if you get paid for raising kids you can raise kids instead of working?
Paid by whom? The government, presumably?
|
It isn't a wild concept. Section 8 was created to assist single income house holds with housing. A more holistic approach, rather than making people apply for 5 different programs, could be more effective.
|
On August 22 2017 13:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:54 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right. So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain? Because their solution is wrong. Unless NR has some editorials about wages for housework? You're putting the cart before the horse. Why is paying a wage for housework the proper solution to the problem of single parent households? Because if you get paid for raising kids you can raise kids instead of working? Paid by whom? The government, presumably?
Presumably the producers. The government might have to be middleman though yeah.
|
On August 22 2017 13:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 13:20 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:54 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right. So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain? Because their solution is wrong. Unless NR has some editorials about wages for housework? You're putting the cart before the horse. Why is paying a wage for housework the proper solution to the problem of single parent households? Because if you get paid for raising kids you can raise kids instead of working? Paid by whom? The government, presumably? Presumably the producers. The government might have to be middleman though yeah.
Okay. I'm too tired to post coherently, but my preliminary thought is that this solution is nothing but a glorified and unnecessarily complicated argument for higher wages. And I suspect that underpinning this solution is a grossly inadequate explanation for how the traditional family unit evolved and why it now must be destroyed.
|
Ok so then we agree it must be destroyed.
But higher wages aren't exactly the same. It's like the difference between getting an allowance and getting a job at your parent's company.
|
He didn't agree that it must be destroyed. He said it was a grossly inadequate explanation for why it must now be destroyed.
Something that has worked for all of recorded human history must now be destroyed because of our current superior wisdom. I can't imagine a basis for a larger folly. This is how we got collectivized agriculture. I'm not saying better efficiency for welfare or BSI is literally holodomor but this talk of how a stay at home mother is a slave offends me like racism must offend GH.
|
I need a citation for "nuclear family with wage earner" working throughout all of recorded human history.
Wait. Are you a stay-at-home dad? How does it offend you like GH is offended by racism?
I mean nowadays we have the "two wage earner family who pay servants to raise their kids" working for the top half of us that pay taxes. It's like Edwardian England.
|
On August 22 2017 14:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 13:28 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 13:20 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 13:17 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 13:01 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:54 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 22 2017 12:41 IgnE wrote:On August 22 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:
I fail to see how her ravings are relevant though? Well because the Right is correct. Single parent households are all about misaligned economic incentives. They just got the analysis wrong. Sylvia's trenchant and perceptive analysis gets it right. So I've read Sylvia's passage a few times now, and I'm having trouble seeing exactly where the Right diverges materially from her Marxist construction of the housewife. In other words, I don't see where the Right's analysis is wrong. Care to explain? Because their solution is wrong. Unless NR has some editorials about wages for housework? You're putting the cart before the horse. Why is paying a wage for housework the proper solution to the problem of single parent households? Because if you get paid for raising kids you can raise kids instead of working? Paid by whom? The government, presumably? Presumably the producers. The government might have to be middleman though yeah. Okay. I'm too tired to post coherently, but my preliminary thought is that this solution is nothing but a glorified and unnecessarily complicated argument for higher wages. And I suspect that underpinning this solution is a grossly inadequate explanation for how the traditional family unit evolved and why it now must be destroyed.
As for the proposal of socialisation and collectivisation of housework, a couple of examples will be sufficient to draw a line between these alternatives and our perspective. It is one thing to set up a day care centre the way we want it, and demand that the State pay for it. It is quite another thing to deliver our children to the State and ask the State to control them, discipline them, teach them to honour the American flag not for five hours, but for fifteen or twenty-four hours. It is one thing to organise communally the way we want to eat (by ourselves, in groups, etc.) and then ask the State to pay for it, and it is the opposite thing to ask the State to organise our meals. In one case we regain some control over our lives, in the other we extend the State’s control over us.
|
Just wanted to point out two things about the whole single parent thing.
1. It's not unique to black people, the same trend was seen across races since the 60's, black people started at a higher percentage, and clearly were more impacted by mass incarceration since the war on drugs.
![[image loading]](http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/ST_2015-12-17_parenting-17.png)
2. Black fathers are as or more involved than fathers of other races in similar conditions.
![[image loading]](https://images.dailykos.com/images/142188/story_image/black-fatherhood.png?1431025883)
There's a lot more here than the shallow conservative critique typically provides.
|
Interesting, but I think the important informaion left out to debunk the "shallow conservative critique" is the relative frequency of "father not living with kids".
|
On August 22 2017 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Just wanted to point out two things about the whole single parent thing. 1. It's not unique to black people, the same trend was seen across races since the 60's, black people started at a higher percentage, and clearly were more impacted by mass incarceration since the war on drugs. 2. Black fathers are as or more involved than fathers of other races in similar conditions. There's a lot more here than the shallow conservative critique typically provides.
1) Everything that graph represents has been talked about by people like Larry Elder. In fact, if anything, it points to the opposite of your inference - that solely the War on Drugs has been the precipitating event. Are you calling the LBJ Welfare system and the rise of single parent HH's (mostly, but not always, women) which are color-blind (i.e there is no skin color requirement to receive these services), is simply a coincidence and has no impact on that graph line? Why would you say this, given that economic incentives are powerful ways to shape human behavior. Ceteris parabus we can say that subsidizing single parent outcomes will contribute to more single parents. No? It's not the sole cause (the War on Drugs definitely has an effect, but please, don't tell me that of the 75% of single parent HH's their father's are incarcerated - I'd love to see the statistics on that, which would bolster your argument instead of simply a graph line with information upon which you make your own inference, but isn't necessarily of supporting evidence). I can show you the % of single parent HH's utilizing Welfare and it is MUCH higher than the rate of incarceration incidence of the father.
2) What does this have to do with anything? I am quite sure the Father is quite involved in those 25% of HH's where they're present. Does anyone dispute such a thing lol?
What would you say to Larry Elder?
|
I'd say "you're a radio host with ancient credentials, no training in economics, and some guy on the internet thinks he can point at you instead of actually making an argument."
His libertarian bootstrap philosophy revolves almost entirely around using the difficult life of his father as license to judge everyone unable to overcome misfortune. His views are selfish, insular, and precisely the sort of thing one would expect from someone who claims that the incredibly boring Atlas Shrugged is one of his favorite books. If every self-proclaimed libertarian took the time to understand why availability heuristics are not a rigorous or sound way to go about giving substance to a worldview, they might actually start gaining political traction.
|
I want to echo that Atlas Shrugged is one of the most tiresome books I have ever interacted with. She could have just cut the novel part and had the objectivist rant at the end.
|
From what I read of the Trump/afghan speech; i'm gonna say meh. not utterly terrible, but not good or anything either. poor overall. I wonder how it'll play with his base; as a fair portion of his base was really against the foreign wars.
|
Personally I'm not opposed to a more or less indefinite presence in the Middle East to prevent an ISIS-like takeover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
