Hacker News Reader

Comment by addicted | Hacker News Reader

> Those who sit at or near the apex of the social ladder (who decide what behaviors are prestigious) have decided that family stability is unimportant.

The author unironically writes this after pointing out that research shows that affluent families the share of families with biological parents has only dropped to 85% from 95% while the share for poor families has dropped to 30% from 95%.

The idea that the social apex has decided that family instability is unimportant is disproved by the numbers the author themselves shows.

But most such narratives are based on grievances and not facts. So it’s not surprising that the author makes claims that are not only not backed by evidence but are disproved by all the evidence the author themselves includes in their article.

View on HN

I’m in a thriving affluent family community, and I haven’t seen anything like what my lived experience is portrayed in media after the 1980s.

I think this is a case of the unwashed masses having no idea how good it can get, and the government failing to counteract cultural messages that being a single mom is empowering.

I remember when The Simpsons first came out, and the writers were going for the "low/working class struggling family" vibe. Now, you look at the same Simpsons lifestyle and think "These guys are loaded!" Single earner with a stable job, two story house in the suburbs, kids' school is not dysfunctional or gang-ridden. This is like a top 10% lifestyle in 2024 USA.

I think they're making the argument that the upper classes make the argument that family stability is unimportant and should be de-prioritized in favor of "doing what makes you happy", but they don't actually believe that when it comes to their own families. The effect (according to OP) is that the upper classes are destabilizing the lower classes by advertising norms they don't actually believe in.

> The people with the most money and education—the class most responsible for shaping politics and culture and customs—ensure that their children are raised in stable homes.

> But actively undermine the norm for everyone else.

Yea, this is what I got out of it too: The "elite" (whoever they are) are deliberately changing cultural norms to promote single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation, family instability, and so on, but they hypocritically forbidding these things in their own families, and will only admit it in private.

Two questions he doesn't seem to answer:

1. How are The Elite™ actually doing this? Cultural norms are set by culture itself, not some "cultural lawmakers" holed up in an ivory tower somewhere. By what mechanism are these upper class mustache-twirlers "setting cultural norms" for the rest of us? I think this needed more discussion.

2. Why are they doing it? How do they benefit from growing dysfunction and deprivation and society in general going down the drain? How are they benefiting from unmoored non-productive men sitting around all over the place? What is the end game?

I wonder if the elite might be trapped by the culture. (Hear me out, here...)

I don't think the elite actually control the culture. To a large degree, the culture controls the (external behavior of) the elite. They have to appear to be everything they're supposed to be. So they give verbal agreement to single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation, and so on, so that the culture doesn't condemn them. But for themselves, they know that those things cause damage to the next generation, and they avoid it like the plague.

Note that this may be true even if "culture" means elite culture. I could see the culture among elites being that 1) you would be condemned if you were not sufficiently verbally supportive of single motherhood and related shibboleths, and 2) you would be condemned if any such thing happened in your family. (I don't actually know; I don't hang out in those circles, and I don't have a good handle on actual elite culture.)

> they're making the argument that the upper classes make the argument that family stability is unimportant and should be de-prioritized in favor of "doing what makes you happy", but they don't actually believe that when it comes to their own families

Yes, but they do not support this with data, just an anecdote.

For ease of reference the author cites the following studies in his article in support of his argument that elites shape political views, culture and norms:

1. "Elite Influence on General Political Preferences"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266731932...

2. "Exploring the direct and indirect effects of elite influence on public opinion"

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

3. "Trickle-Down Preferences: Preferential Conformity to High Status Peers in Fashion Choices"

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

> ... is disproved by the numbers the author themselves shows.

Yup I just made a similar comment (but using other examples). TFA is contradicting itself and another linked article (from the same author) is also contradicting itself.

You and OP seem to be missing the author's point: the rich are lying to the poor. Whole families for me, broken families for thee.

(I don't think there's anything in it but that's what the author is saying.)

I don't think that disproves it at all? Affluent families have decided that family stability isn't too important, but their affluence makes it easy to obtain, in the same way they obtain other unimportant things like fancy dinners or overseas vacations. If Amy's boyfriend from the article were rich enough that he could satisfy all his selfish pursuits while still spending on the family, it sounds like they'd still be together.

The author addresses this with the anecdote about the discussion panelist espousing different views in private vs public. The "social apex" does practice family stability themselves, but de-emphasized it as a cultural norm. Presumably through their power of, say, academic research and media production.

Though the article could have done a better job explaining this. It's like a reverse phenomenon of "do as I say, not as I do".

Though the article could have done a better job explaining this. It's like a reverse phenomenon of "do as I say, not as I do".

That's probably what the article meant but I'm skeptical that it makes a significant difference in behavior. There are other positive behaviors that "social apex" people say and do but lower income people as a group still don't imitate them. Strictures like "don't use tobacco," "don't impregnate/get impregnated as a teen", "drink unsweetened iced tea instead of Coke," and "use free time to exercise instead of snacking and binge watching" are significantly less popular among low income/status groups than high income/status groups.

Not only is it a completely conspiratorial claim, the much stronger argument against it is simply looking at a region of the world where elites still heavily advocate family centered norms, i.e East Asia.

In those countries the other social strata don't happily follow suit, young women do something else, they opt out of family formation altogether. If you go to South Korea and ask pretty much any young educated woman why she doesn't want kids or even a relationship, the answer is that she'd risk being trapped in it and disadvantaged at work. The same is true in Iran or Turkey which now have lower birth rates than France.

This stuff has nothing to do with "elite values" or "luxury beliefs", I'd say it barely has a cultural component. As education levels and absolute incomes rise virtually everywhere people change their values.

Several of the graphics in the article are from the book Coming Apart [1] which actually makes a more complex argument.

Specifically, it says the ruling class no longer publicly supports traditional family structures, despite continuing to follow them for themselves.

Nobody these days would have anything bad to say about single mothers, or unmarried couples. But when you look at the behaviour of the top 20 percent in socioeconomic status? They're all forming married two-parent households.

(The book covers a load of other topics and supports its observations a lot more than my short HN post, naturally)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Apart_(book)

> The idea that the social apex has decided that family instability is unimportant is disproved by the numbers the author themselves shows.

Henderson acknowledges this explicitly. He spends a great deal of time pointing out the hypocrisy of wealthy Americans proclaiming that marriage is outmoded and unnecessary for raising children, yet mostly wait to get married before having children themselves.

It’s still important for the ruling class young adults to prosper, including marrying(from their own class).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com