Arrived in my pile

Comments

Marriage
A contract between three subjects: two people, usually of the opposite sex, and the state.
See divorce

(Why bother?)

Whoever wrote the blurb summary did Dr. Sawhill a disservice (or maybe her argument is problematic). Early child-bearing is not much of a problem in this country, nor is there excess fertility. Were people such great 'planners' in 1955, or was wisdom communicated to the young in culture?

http://news.yahoo.com/economist-divides-parents-drifters-vs-planners-172121531.html

I'd be interested to learn if she ever considered that community norms and inhibitions might be of a piece with practices regarding household formation, and that what we've got is the equilibrium you're going to get when loose morals are the norm.

That would be judgmental. You can't blame the victim(s).

I suspect that early child-bearing is not much of a problem in this country in precisely the way that education isn't much of a problem. If you're a member of a demographic that does things like write books or read economics blogs, neither education nor early parenthood are significant issues. (All the numbers I've seen suggest that the US doesn't have an *education* issue so much as a poverty-and-institutional-racism issue.) It doesn't seem contradictory to both laud the increased freedom of the post-sexual-revolution era and highlight some of that freedom's unintended consequences, which seem to fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable citizens.

US doesn’t have an *education* issue so much as a poverty-and-institutional-racism issue

There is no such thing as 'institutional racism' and we live in a country where obesity is inversely correlated with income.

It doesn’t seem contradictory to both laud the increased freedom of the post-sexual-revolution era and highlight some of that freedom’s unintended consequences, which seem to fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable citizens.

They are not 'unintended consequences'. They are features.

While I cannot point to data right now to test this, it seems to me that places where "loose morals" have not widely propagated (such as, poor white evangelicals) have a high rate of out-of-wedlock children, while communities that are the vanguard of loose morals (coastal chardonnay sipping liberal elites) have a low rate of out-of-wedlock children. Thus, I am not sure we came blame "culture." Seems like a cause of poverty and poor education is more consistent with the observed effect.

Well, I have a pretty good data point: the relatively recent past had more poverty, less education, and a massively lower rate of bastardy.

Isn't one of the main determinants of teenage pregnancy the difference of teaching "abstinence only" versus "here's a condom and how to use it"?

As I understand it, out-of-wedlock births have recently declined sharply and unexpectedly. I believe the cause of this decline is still a puzzle, and is not correlated with changes in sex ed; although some posit the recession may have played a role.

Women make bad decisions and society allows them to kill their children out of convenience (abortion) or gives them free money.

Men make bad decisions and society sentences them to indentured servitude (child support).

"Indentured servitude"? Really?

Not even a mild exaggeration.

Calling it slavery would *perhaps* be a mild exaggeration, but it probably accurate as well.

I'm not sure about the classification as "bad decisions", but the rest sounds fairly accurate to me. It's not like men have the right to say "I can't afford it, so please abort." Well, there are alternatives. Most of them are taught in high school health class these days.

Women also have the right (in most jurisdictions) to abandon the baby after birth.

Equal protection under the law eh?

I wonder if the book addresses that the marshmallow test has been revisited.

By the University of Rochester? I am sure that continued social acceptance depends very strongly on blaming White people for everything.

The more interesting question is whether he revisits the link with absent fathers. That would link one book in the pile with the other. After all, every child can and does recognize a broken promise when they see it. Telling them that their parents still love them when they have just been shown how situationally dependent said parents' love is, is unlikely to help. A child of divorce is entirely rational in rejecting a future promise.

Which might also link it with another one - are children better able to delay gratification when they believe in Santa Claus?

"Which might also link it with another one – are children better able to delay gratification when they believe in Santa Claus? - "

Yup, this.

So kids that delay gratification tend to do better in life overall.

That, or kids that are in situations where it natural for them to trust adults tend to do better in life overall.

The first one is very appealing to the adults who have made the world the second kids have to live in. And it's not about race. It's about liars.

Which is what we become when we blame the kid eating the marshmallow for his dreary future.

How do I e-mail to you a 2 page article for you to consider its' merits and if it is worthy of publication by you?

Comments for this post are closed