Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdmichal | Hacker News Reader

I'm going to repost a comment of mine from two years ago. This is not an unknown thing to school boards.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23012403

The wife of one of my good friends was on the county school board for 12 years. According to her, it was an unspoken secret was that parental involvement was the biggest predictor of / contributor to student success. The reason it was taboo was because you absolutely cannot expect anything from the parents. It was political suicide.

I would put dollars on the table that such is already happening for every parent that is willing and able to do it, because they were already doing it before too.

View on HN

The #1 factor in determining if a kid will have a desired outcome is if they have a mom and a dad present. It's really that simple. And that means parental involvement.

It's sad one is labeled a racist or anti-feminist or w/e when you point this obvious fact out. ~70% of black kids are born to single mom's. That's a broken culture. White kids are at ~30% and rising and we see the same failure rates. That's a broken culture. Asian's have 2-parent families and have success. Even the lower class ones, suggesting income/class shouldn't be a factor in having kids with 2 parents.

So of course the next step is to demonize the nuclear family. The trends keep getting worse.

What do you mean by "broken culture?"

That's it's considered acceptable for kids to be born into situations like this. This is "broken" because it reliably leads to failure and undesirable outcomes.

You’re making a lot of strong assumptions when you say that it’s considered acceptable. I strongly doubt that it is normal for anyone to want to be a single parent (there are of course anecdotal exceptions to this, but not on a cultural level).

I think he means a culture that produces bad outcomes.

The most charitable interpretation of "broken culture" would be America, across all slices of society, has trended towards selfish shallow values, less intellectual interests and value on hard work, more aggression and an empathy defecit.

I think this has frayed the fabric of society by damaging the reciprocity that binds families and communities, and encourages divisive and antisocial, short-term behaviors over long-term, collective decision-making.

This varies across our rich tapestry of subcultures, but I see it everywhere. Especially among government and business leaders.

An analogy I heard is that there is no single American culture. Or even an "American Culture" at all, and that there probably shouldn't be one. And that various powers/forces/etc have tried to homogenize America into a shared American Culture which can't possibly exist. So, the analogy is America is like a soda machine that has many different flavors of soda and each of them is different and unique and loved by different people. Some flavors disgust some people too and they don't want it. However, we've decided to mix them all together anyways and no one actually likes that. So instead we'd be better off leaving each other alone, allowing different communities with different values to do things the way they want to and to rely less and less on Federal government oversight into social issues. Give more power to the states and in turn the states give more power to localities.

Wholeheartedly agree with your analogy. Americans share a federal political system, but not much of a collective culture, at least not too far beyond that shared by liberal societies around the world. It's one of the best thing about the states. You're 100% right that the Federal govt should step back to allow local government to handle issues differently. Local people care about local people and understand their needs/concerns.

but what to do about it?

we can't just expect parents to get involved. nor does it help to just blame their kids performance on them.

the focus really needs to be on a broader level. what changes to our society are needed so that families can thrive so that they can actually focus on the care of their kids?

things like higher minimum wage, parental leave, easy access to insurance, etc. all the general needs everyone has.

i believe what largely has gone wrong is the idea that in order for people to have a better life they need to start with better academic performance so they can get better jobs which ends in a better life.

but it appears that academic performance is not the start of a better life, it is the outcome.

That's a broken culture

what part of the culture is broken? and who's culture?

how about the broken american culture that doesn't provide adequate support and protection for parents? i don't think being a single parent is a problem in itself. it only raises the difficulty level. it would be less of an issue if parents had more rights against their employers that would allow them to care for their kids, or get enough financial support that they don't need to hold a fulltime job with hours that conflict with their kids schedule. or affordable childcare. there are so many things that could be done, but people just like to point at problems and not think about solutions.

So you're saying it's everything else that's wrong. Not that we accept single motherhood as normal and OK?

That's what's wrong here. Rights without responsibility. Stop incentivizing single motherhood, for starters. Encourage men to stick around and for both parents to rely on each other. It feels like you're helping but you're not. You're encouraging futile behavior.

that's not what i meant to say.

what's wrong is that we keep trying to find out who or what is at fault instead of trying to find out how to actually make things better.

the question is: how do you encourage men to stick around? what makes them leave? who or what is incentivizing single motherhood? if it is economical factors, then those factors need to change. those are what i gave as examples.

what i hear is: being a single mother is bad. you shouldn't leave your family. don't do that. but that doesn't help. we need to get a better understanding of what causes families to break apart. we need to provide an environment that supports families.

being a single parent is not a cause, it is an outcome. we need to fix the causes for that outcome, if we want to change that.

encourage parents to rely on each other

what is that supposed to mean? a cynical reading suggests that this means that if only parents would rely on each other they would not have any problems. how about the ability to rely on society? because that is what is lacking. parents are on their own. i don't know, but is that what incentivizes single mothers? because they can get more help that way? if that is the case, yes, that should change, but not by providing less help to single parents, but rather by providing more help to couples, so they can stay together.

Of course there are external factors, but if you aren't even going to entertain the idea that the people who decide to live these lifestyles bear some of the responsibility for the outcomes, you are not helping anyone.

It seems that as a society we have given up on the idea of personal responsibility/accountability.

No, we as a society have deemed it irresponsible to leave it completely up to people who have never properly learned how to succeed in society what they want to do and instead set up programs to make it easier for them to get on the path to success.

There still remains a vocal part of society that have given up their civic responsibility to improve society (whether by ensuring the other participants in the democracy are educated or by reducing pollution, etc.) and that believes that these groups should continue to remain impoverished for generations, radiating harms on the rest of society.

i think it is irrelevant who is responsible, what matters is what we can do about it.

i can not force you to change your lifestyle, but i can make the desired lifestyle more economically and socially viable.

but that requires actually helping people instead of lecturing them.

It's a hard question and we have to look at how we got here. Before 1955 or so, we weren't having this problem, for example. We had other problems, yes, but not this disaster. Not so many people were clients of the state.

But for starters at a high level:

- Dismantle any form of welfare; money, food stamps, housing, etc. for anyone of able mind and body and of working age. Children will never be an input for how much welfare you receive so there is no incentive to have kids. Possibly even penalize welfare based on number of kids.

- As a consequence of this, fire most of the welfare administration nationwide

- Build a new Citizen Development Force that takes on children from mothers that can't raise them without benefits. Any mother can drop their kid(s) off here but the mother then loses any rights to the child. These are large camps around the country that offer among the best salaries to qualified care takers, teachers, mentors, etc. Each function has aggressive KPIs (to go with the high salaries) and audits to ensure successful outcomes. There are checks and controls to prevent any type of abuse.

- Citizen Development Force has a mission to nurture, raise, teach, and grow these kids into self sufficient, responsible adults. The top 30% are sent to universities or put into military leadership positions (officers). The rest are taught trades/technical/enlisted after 15 years of age based on their interests and aptitudes. Those with learning disabilities become clients of the state for life.

Ideally, after about 20-30 years this program can begin to be shut down and the funds can be redistributed to finance new social problems. The idea is to break the cycle.

please tell me you are joking. you want to punish people for having kids?

do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly?

what you are suggesting sounds like brave new world. that's a horrible vision.

children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. i do not believe that any form of institution is going to be more capable to raise children than natural parents.

your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. but that is not true, and that is not the problem.

the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. pretty much any other country in the world is more supportive than the USA.

the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. my prediction is that they won't be because they didn't grow up in a family themselves. so this system will have to continue in perpetuity because the children of these people will also have to be raised in these institutions, and more parents are going to send kids to these institutions than parents from there who will be able to raise kids on their own. it's going to create a cycle that will end in a dystopia.

i was still with you when you said to disincentivize single parenting, but i thought you wanted to support families. you said it yourself: The #1 factor in determining if a kid will have a desired outcome is if they have a mom and a dad present. what you are suggesting here is quite the opposite. children in institutions is not children with parents.

it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that normal people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority.

brave new world indeed.

(UPDATED)

> do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly?

No, they won't want to lose their kids. But if they have no means to support them then they will. So because they aren't receiving any financial assistance for shelter, food, and clothing then they will rely on having a partner. We have now incentivized that type of behavior. Failing that, if they can't provide a safe environment for their kids then we will take the kids out of the home. We do this today. We could altar the civil rights act to include children in these situations.

> children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse.

Adopted kids do great. It's about structure and predictability.

> your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids.

Correct. All the evidence says they are not capable.

> the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive.

Correct - as stated above we incentivize them to create a supportive environment or we will create one for their kids.

> the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own.

We will teach them how. They will be so removed from their environment of shattering poverty, drugs, abuse, etc. They won't even recognize that world and will be disgusted by it. They will learn how to be productive people that can not only take care of themselves but can care for others. These are learned behaviors. One of the reasons we have generational poverty is because bad habits are passed down. The cycle never gets broken.

> children in institutions is not children with parents.

Institutions are a surrogate.

> it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority.

Or we can continue to double down on the same bad ideas we've been trying for the last 60 or 70 years. Talk about hubris and arrogance!

The main difference is I'm actually trying to help the kids. Not create government dependent parents that will vote for me because I get scraps sent their way.

This is the same kind of thinking that lead to the abduction of Native kids, forced sterilizations, etc.: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/14/20913408/us-stol...

Not really. What happened there was an attempt to destroy Native cultures and even reproduction. It's based on a racial trait.

My ideas are to help kids from mothers that can't or won't provide an acceptable environment to grow up in have a chance to grow up in a caring, non-abusive environment that gives them the best chance to have a life. And hopefully reproduce and pass those values on to their own kids! :)

I'm not saying it would be the best implementation, but the idea is to help kids. Not create a client of the state that will vote for a certain political party because they are helpless and dependent. I want to help people. Not hurt them and lie to myself and others and pretend I'm helping when I'm only serving my own agenda.

Why do you think the people who stole Native kids didn't want the best for those kids? It's just that in their case, they assumed that Native upbringing == bad parenting. (And I'm sure that the poverty/crime rate/etc. of those communities were also part of that rationalization.)

> Not create a client of the state that will vote for a certain political party because they are helpless and dependent.

I'm pretty sure there's no evidence bearing out that this happens to any significant degree. Moreover, people generally don't enjoy staying on welfare.

I mean, we already pull a ton of kids out of abusive homes today. The difference is there has to be a case that the child is in an unsafe environment. In the case of Native kids it was simply their race.

The problem today is the kids stay in or close to the negative environment. There’s no one to teach them. My idea is to simply close the loop and give them essentially boarding school.

People may not enjoy being on welfare but the data shows that generational welfare is a thing.

But if they have no means to support them then they will.

and as a result you traumatize everyone in that family for life.

So because they aren't receiving any financial assistance for shelter, food, and clothing then they will rely on having a partner. We have now incentivized that type of behavior.

no, you haven't.

how do you think this works? all you are doing is forcing people to stay in relationships that are not healthy. do you think people separate because they got bored? they separate because they can't support each other. but you are forcing them to stay together, which creates environments ripe for abuse.

Adopted kids do great.

you were talking about an institution. and where are you going to find all these adoptive parents? already now there are not enough of those.

we incentivize them to create a supportive environment

that's not what i meant by a supportive environment.

a supportive environment is a community that helps families who can't make it on their own.

We will teach them how. They will be so removed from their environment of shattering poverty, drugs, abuse, etc.

they will also be removed from the love of their parents, which is the most important thing that they need.

Or we can continue to double down on the same bad ideas we've been trying for the last 60 or 70 years

we could also look at how other countries do it, and listen to people and learn what they actually need to make this work for them.

The main difference is I'm actually trying to help the kids.

and i am trying to help the parents. so that they can actually take care of their kids themselves.

I think all your ideas are great and I’d be all for them if they weren’t just completely unrealistic and ineffective.

I grew up around those environments and was immersed in them. My experience as well as analyzing what we have done to “fix it” have led me to believe that a radical breaking of the wheel is necessary. And not only necessary but moral.

It’s time to put kids first.

It’s time to put kids first.

this is where i have a problem. taking away kids from their parents is not putting kids first. unless the parents are outright abusive, in which case there are already mechanisms in place. what you are suggesting is not helpful.

we do not need better individual academic performance but we need better relationships, so that people care more for each other and we can build stronger communities that can work together to improve everyones lives.

taking away children from their parents hurts the ability of those children (and of the parents too) to make friends and form trusting relationships. which in the long term hurts the very fabric of society. already individualism is very strong, and it's becoming a problem.

only as a united community can we solve our problems and build a better future.

One thing to do is to stop penalizing family structure through taxes and transfers.

> The U.S. tax code, for example, contains a marriage penalty for high-earner, two-income couples. And the earned income tax credit penalizes lower-wage married couples. Moreover, welfare rules have frequently made it harder for married households than for single-parent households to get benefits. Although few couples sit down and calculate the possible economic effects of getting married, there is a sense, especially within low-income communities, that getting married means you lose “stuff.” Couples may not be able to calculate exactly how much “stuff” they stand to lose, but they know marriage, at least financially, is a bad deal.

> And they are right. According to calculations by Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, a single mother working full-time at a minimum-wage job who marries a man working full-time at $8 an hour stands to lose $8,060 in cash and noncash welfare benefits. Under such circumstances, the wonder is not that few low-income couples marry, but that any do.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/wedding-bell-blues-marria...

Yes and no. The tax code doesn't punish marriage per se. It punishes financially successful and ambitious couples (and for that matter, financially successful and ambitious individuals). The traditional breadwinner-homemaker relationship is subsidized in all but name by the current tax code.

If there is a causal relationship between number of parents and children's erudition, then I think you've made a good argument for the nuclear family and a great argument for polygamy. :)

We do have a sort of polygamy but the fathers don't stick around! But it's not hard to see why so many cultures had (and still have) this type of arrangement where wealthy men that can support all these women and kids have many wives, average guys have 1, and the bottom of society has none as they can't support them anyways.

Poor men can have multiple girlfriends and one night stands as well. The vast majority of men thrown in jail for failure to pay child support have low paying jobs.

> It's sad one is labeled a racist or anti-feminist or w/e when you point this obvious fact out. ~70% of black kids are born to single mom's

Where it ventures into racist territory is to present these statistics on their own absent the context of mass incarceration, over policing and manufactured black criminality that play such a large role in the disparity that you’re pointing out. To blame it on culture more so than a correlation with poverty and a cycle of incarceration feels awfully close to blaming black people for the systemic racism to which they’re subjected.

It’s not just a black issue. There’s a ton of white people this applies to. White people are at the same rate blacks were in the 60’s when the Moynihan Report came out. So the trajectory is the same.

Society is far less racist than it was in the 1950’s. However the amount of fatherlessness has exploded. Same with for whites but it started at a different place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com