I do not ever comment, but this article is rife with misconceptions. A specific example would be:
*
How did America’s elderly end up cheated of dignity? After all, even desperately poor countries have “informal social support systems” — otherwise known as families and communities. But in America, there is the catastrophic collapse of social bonds. Extreme capitalism has blown apart American society so totally that people cannot even care for one another as much as they do in places like Pakistan and Nigeria.*
Any honest examination of the destruction of the social family unit easily shows that this was not due to capitalism, but progressive and socialist legislation that encouraged disintegration of the family units.
Three of the largest 'capitalism endorsed' holidays in the USA are Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter (though Easter in the last few decades has decreased significantly in its importance and stature).
If anything, capitalism's endorsement of these holidays brings families CLOSER together, than they normally exist during the rest of the year. Left policies and statements about 'patriarchal structures' and why they need to be disassembled have contributed far more to family unit disintegration than capitalism.
Edit:
Not to belabor the point either, but referencing Pakistan and Nigeria in this quote shows the authors bias. Both of these countries are great examples where patriarchy is absolutely thriving, strong familial bonds, led by men in those nations, with a subjugated women class.
Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological tangents. Political battle is low-value discussion (for this site) to begin with and has a way of proliferating dismayingly. It is the opposite of what HN is for.
> Any honest examination of the destruction of the social family unit easily shows that this was not due to capitalism, but progressive and socialist legislation that encouraged disintegration of the family units.
Can you give concrete examples of legislation that "encouraged disintegration of the family units"?
> If anything, capitalism's endorsement of these holidays brings families CLOSER together, than they normally exist during the rest of the year
How so? Would Christmas have faded in significance if it weren't "endorsed" by capitalism"?
> Left policies and statements about 'patriarchal structures' and why they need to be disassembled have contributed far more to family unit disintegration than capitalism.
The canonical American nuclear family unit doesn't even include multi-generational housing.
>Can you give concrete examples of legislation that "encouraged disintegration of the family units"?
Absolutely. I am not going to link to any analysis right now, but take a look at the requirements placed on familiy units for welfare consumption, WIC, etc. In order to obtain the optimal amount of benefit, the family unit must already be in a disintegrated state, eg non-married, non-cohabitating, with offspring present. This encourages an anti-marriage, anti-stable family pattern.
>The canonical American nuclear family unit doesn't even include multi-generational housing.
This is where you will need to link me to concrete proof of anything having to do with the 'canonical American nuclear family'. This appears to be a statement that is clearly subjective from family to family.
> This encourages an anti-marriage, anti-stable family pattern.
Welfare state is not "let's financially encourage the disintegration of families". It's "let's help individuals that suffer from the lack of a family support system".
People on unemployment benefits still look for a job, because they value their dignity over money. Similarly, most people want to be loved and cared, and wouldn't destroy their own family over a (meager, by the way) monetary gain.
> Welfare state is not "let's financially encourage the disintegration of families". It's "let's help individuals that suffer from the lack of a family support system".
In policy, outcomes are at least as important as intentions. The question is whether welfare has this effect, not whether the original/current proponents of welfare intend for this effect.
There's the kernel of a reasonable idea here [1]. Unfortunately for your parent post, even the studies most favorable to this conclusion find only a modest effect and cite factors like relationship quality and access to decent paying jobs as much better predictors of marriage success.
> People on unemployment benefits still look for a job, because they value their dignity over money.
Even the studies that are used to justify your parent post's viewpoint ultimately conclude that this is true for the vast majority of people. Interestingly, those studies also find that the poorer you are, the less likely you are to consider loss of welfare benefits when making a decision about marriage.
> In order to obtain the optimal amount of benefit, the family unit must already be in a disintegrated state, eg non-married, non-cohabitating, with offspring present.
Aggressive means-testing is a compromise outcome, as attributable to conservatives as to liberals/socialists.
> This encourages an anti-marriage, anti-stable family pattern.
Most of the think-tank pieces pushing this assertion cite the same sociologist, W. Bradford Wilcox, whose work is supported by AEI's Institute for Family Studies. Here's what Wilcox says about what his empirical work demonstrates [1]:
> one of the study’s co-authors, said the study’s findings show that welfare is “not the most important factor in explaining why we see a pretty marked increase in single parenthood and unmarried childbearing in the last 40 years.”
Discussed at greater length in [2], reaching the conclusion that
> Taken together, these results suggest that marriage penalties associated with American social-welfare programs play only a modest role in shaping the marriage decisions of contemporary couples with new children
So even the primary academic proponent of this theory, when pressed, admits his own empirical studies don't justify his favored causative hypothesis -- that the effect is mild at best.
It's unsurprising, then, that these think thank pieces focus on logical deductions about homo economicus rather than empirical datasets and statistical tests. Social science at its best ;-)
Now, none of this is to say that means testing shouldn't be reformed in order to encourage marriage! And in fact, I agree with Wilcox that welfare shouldn't discourage marriage.
But we have to respect the science here. Your causative assertion about causes of structural changes to American families isn't justified, even by the people most eager to prove such a link. And as a result, we don't have any reason to believe that reforming welfare will have anything other than a "modest" effect on the structure of American families.
So, what variables do effect family structure? Even according to [2], the answer isn't welfare, but "stable, decent-paying work and good relationships are far more important predictors of marriage and childbearing decisions for such couples than are calculations related to social-welfare benefits."
Which, incidentally, dovetails nicely with the article's conclusions: lack of access to stable, decent-paying work and a breakdown in social relationships.
So the article may be "rife with misconceptions", as you say, but its root cause analysis appears closer to the mark than your assertions. And that's even true when we only consider evidence from people who are most aligned with your world-view!
In order to obtain the optimal amount of benefit, the family unit must already be in a disintegrated state, eg non-married, non-cohabitating, with offspring present. This encourages an anti-marriage, anti-stable family pattern.
Doesn't appear to be a problem in, say, Scandinavian countries, those hotspots of unbridled socialism. Pretty much every quality of life ranking lists those right at the top, along with other socialist troublemakers like Canada, The Netherlands, etc.
"Three of the largest 'capitalism endorsed' holidays in the USA are Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter (though Easter in the last few decades has decreased significantly in its importance and stature)."
You mean the two major holidays where people are busy on their phones, and flyers planning what they are going to buy because retailers decided to keep their stores open and start their "blockbuster/doorbuster" sales the day of and the day before those holidays? Yep, those "progressive and socialist legislation" and nothing to do with capitalism, right? /s
You are misrepresenting fairly benign statements, and I think you know that.
Not at all. You randomly talk about "socialist legislation that encouraged disintegration of the family units." without giving specific examples. You also point to 3 holidays that have an emphasis on the family as proof that capitalism does it better, which is just plain old laughable bullshit. Family isn't about 3 days a year, family is about every day of the year. The fact that this actually needs to be pointed out to you shows that the article is on to something.
* How did America’s elderly end up cheated of dignity? After all, even desperately poor countries have “informal social support systems” — otherwise known as families and communities. But in America, there is the catastrophic collapse of social bonds. Extreme capitalism has blown apart American society so totally that people cannot even care for one another as much as they do in places like Pakistan and Nigeria.*
Any honest examination of the destruction of the social family unit easily shows that this was not due to capitalism, but progressive and socialist legislation that encouraged disintegration of the family units.
Three of the largest 'capitalism endorsed' holidays in the USA are Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter (though Easter in the last few decades has decreased significantly in its importance and stature).
If anything, capitalism's endorsement of these holidays brings families CLOSER together, than they normally exist during the rest of the year. Left policies and statements about 'patriarchal structures' and why they need to be disassembled have contributed far more to family unit disintegration than capitalism.
Edit: Not to belabor the point either, but referencing Pakistan and Nigeria in this quote shows the authors bias. Both of these countries are great examples where patriarchy is absolutely thriving, strong familial bonds, led by men in those nations, with a subjugated women class.