Hacker News Reader

Comment by drBonkers | Hacker News Reader

> i struggle to imagine what the state's solution would be to a lack of fathers.

Manipulate the incentive structure so that it does not financially incentivize single parents.

"Show me the incentive, I'll show you the outcome."

I'm legitimately unsure here but how are single parents incentivized financially? That's an environment that I am wholly unfamiliar with so I really have no context.

They are saying financial incentives should be to force people together vs support single parents. The unsaid part is to encourage, through policy, marriage and traditional family structures by way of less access to secular social safety programs. The problem is that this leads to people being forced to stay in abusive or unhealthy relationships because of someone else's ideology.

If you work backwards further, you'll find you're unable to fix dysfunctional relationships through economic policy. ~40% of annual pregnancies in the US are unintended, so perhaps more accessible family planning is what is needed, so that people who don't want to be parents don't become parents.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-u...

Information to consume to better understand this mental model: https://ifstudies.org/blog/category/single-parents

"The world is never unhappy because of children who have not yet been born; it is grief stricken by children who have been placed on the planet without anyone to love them adequately. We can cope with fewer children, we can't cope with yet more parents insufficiently dedicated to the tasks of love." -- Unknown

Ah okay, I understand the perspective now. Thanks for the extra information.

Given the GP's statistic, I think you could argue that raising a child fatherless is itself unhealthy and abusive. How we weigh one harm against the other is a sticky mess, but we could probably start by curbing no-fault divorces, at least when kids are involved. Let people get divorces in cases of abuse, but "we got bored of each other" divorces harm kids and the rest of society pays the price.

Agree to disagree. You only get one life, and then you die. Having children shouldn't be an emotional death sentence if your marriage sucks (50% of first marriages end in divorce, 60%+ for second marriages). You can coparent just fine divorced if both parents are involved, financially stable, and emotionally well adjusted. You can even have children without being married. The economic part is the primary problem (having kids one can't afford). Forcing people economically (using policy) into longterm unhappiness will not lead to the desired outcome.

Tangentially, there are ~400k children in foster care in the US at any moment in time, roughly 1/4 of which are adoptable. No one adopts them, and then they age out into adulthood. What happens next as adults, the statistics are grim (roughly 25 percent become homeless).

So, these various datasets leads me to the conclusion that we have a long way to go to help people who don't want kids to not have them (while still robustly supporting parents who very much want to parent). This, I believe, will lead to better outcomes overall. I also argue society wants healthy productive citizens who will be taxpayers and generate productivity, but doesn't give a damn about helping parents or struggling children (you would think advocates of universal school lunches were asking for someone's head on a platter, for example), so society deserves what it gets in that regard until it's ready to invest. Talk is cheap.

Welfare.

> Manipulate the incentive structure so that it does not financially incentivize single parents.

I hope not. Everybody wants a "more simplified tax code" except they all want their own credit/deduction/exemption/whatever. This is how we end up with nonsense like the masters exemption.

> This IRS exemption allows homeowners to exclude up to two weeks of rental income from their taxable income.

There's only so much a secular system can do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com