Comment by djrobstep | Hacker News Reader

Comment by djrobstep | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This research is entirely bogus. As Matt Bruenig points out:

> In general, there was some kind of problem present in the family that experienced the divorce that was not present in the family that did not experience the divorce. To actually analyze the effect of the divorce, you would need to compare the divorced family to a hypothetical version of itself that did not divorce despite whatever the problem was that lead to the divorce.

> Another way to put this is: you need to compare couples with the same kinds of relationship dysfunctions, but where one couple splits and the other couple stays together. Comparing a split-couple with a certain relationship dysfunction to an intact-couple that does not have that relationship dysfunction, which is what all of this research does, is an obvious mistake.

> To put this in less abstract terms, if dad beats mom and they get divorced, it’s not accurate to say that, but for the divorce, the kids would have fared exactly the same as a similar non-divorced family where dad does not beat mom. Yet that is what the research Kearney relies upon assumes.

Full post here: https://mattbruenig.com/2023/09/20/doing-the-marriage-thing-...

Matt’s blog post does not convince me that this is “entirely bogus.”

> To put this in less abstract terms, if dad beats mom and they get divorced, it’s not accurate to say that, but for the divorce, the kids would have fared exactly the same as a similar non-divorced family where dad does not beat mom. Yet that is what the research Kearney relies upon assumes.

Is she really suggesting that an unstable, abusive 2P household is significant better than any 1P household? Given her quotes in TFA, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Matt also writes:

> As with any group, the missing parents are a heterogenous bunch, but that population almost certainly skews towards below-average earnings and below-average domestic contribution, with many actually having a net-negative domestic contribution, whether because they are abusive, demanding, or otherwise.

> This is easily the goofiest thing about this discourse. To hear Kearney talk about it, you’d think that the single mothers of the world are turning down $44,000 and hundreds of hours of free child care each year. But why would someone do that? If that option is as incredibly beneficial as Kearney says it is, why don’t people select it? Do people want their lives to be bad rather than good?

TFA states that 50% of children in the US are born to unmarried mothers. Should we assume that 50% of fathers are abusive or demanding or just an overall net negative like Matt suggests? That seems like /quite/ a stretch.

Matt assumes that the single mothers turning down “$44,000 and free childcare” must be doing so rationally (because their potential partners would be a net negative). But people don’t always think rationally, especially young people having children out of wedlock. It can be an incredibly stressful and difficult situation.

That, or he ignores social stigma and the amount of work it takes to work and raise a child and quite naively assumes that unmarried mothers have the same ability to find a long-term partner as somebody without kids. Perhaps many of those unmarried mothers actually do want $44,000 and free childcare, but find it difficult to get that after having a child?

> Is she really suggesting that an unstable, abusive 2P household is significant better than any 1P household?

She does not consider the quality of the household whatsoever. That is the problem.

> TFA states that 50% of children in the US are born to unmarried mothers. Should we assume that 50% of fathers are abusive or demanding or just an overall net negative like Matt suggests? That seems like /quite/ a stretch.

That doesn't mean 50% are divorced. For instance, my own partner and I are unmarried and recently had a child together, but we aren't divorced.

> Matt assumes that the single mothers turning down “$44,000 and free childcare” must be doing so rationally

? No he doesn't.

> quite naively assumes that unmarried mothers have the same ability to find a long-term partner as somebody without kids

Again, no he doesn't assume this at all. In fact, the article doesn't mention repartnering whatsoever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com