
“Marriage promotion” is a destructive cargo cult - goblin89
http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4938.html
======
Crito
This may be the sleep deprivation talking, but the wiki page for "marriage
promotion" is damn near incomprehensible, the article is even worse, and
furthermore the article seems to assume background on both it and some recent
discussion that has apparently been taking place over it.

As far as I can divine, it is some sort of idea about giving extra welfare
benefits to married people, or withholding them from single people?

Is this currently happening? Is anybody that is advocating it anybody that I
should care about? Am I missing something that makes this a HN-worthy topic
(if it's just general intellectual interest stuff, that's fine, but I can't
tell if that is the angle here or not)?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yeah, this is bad. Great political commentary, but god-awful HN fodder.

We pay people to have babies, so people have babies. We create a financial
reward for people not to marry, so they don't marry. Film at 11. This entire
discussion is just regurgitated political arguments from the 60s, and not much
has changed, frankly, except the destruction of the family unit and social
fabric in poor families.

This author wants to make the case that society is to blame (Gee, never saw
that one coming) and that we should all strive to be more compassionate and
understanding. He does so by some weird idea that marriage is a contract and
that by looking at statistics the other side is confusing correlation with
causality. Then he rambles into the idea that promoting marriage for stability
is getting things ass-backwards. You can draw your own conclusions here
looking at 2 thousand years of history.

So there's not much here except for a long apologia for programs that never
worked, but it's definitely damned long-winded.

All part of a larger narrative in the states regarding income inequality and
the poor, which is how the left plans to split the country, continue the
divisiveness, and get their guys elected for the next few years or so.

So really just more of the same stuff you can find on any politics site. I
have no idea why it's reached such prominence on HN.

~~~
sliverstorm
_not much has changed, frankly, except the destruction of the family unit and
social fabric in poor families_

Are those things _not_ big deals?

~~~
guard-of-terra
Maybe (s)he expected positive changes for a change?

------
rayiner
This is an unpopularly conservative concept, but I think the mainstream view
of social welfare ignores the importance of family structures in maintaining
social order in poor societies. Its hard not to look around here in Wilmington
and not see the gang prevalence as being connected to the power vacuum that
results from crumbling family authority.

Also, I've begun to resent people who say single parenthood is just as good.
Single parents shouldn't bear the social stigma they have in the past, but
going as far to say that having one parent is just as good as two both ignores
the empirical evidence and common sense. If I left my wife tomorrow, my
daughter would have the same outcomes? Really?

~~~
pekk
What does "crumbling family authority" result from? And are you positive that
is an accurately described root cause and not a symptom?

------
ronaldx
My housemate works as a marriage registrar.

I just asked him what percentage of marriages in our local area are primarily
for visa exchange purposes. He said "a majority".

I think this article makes an assumption that it's normal/preferable to get
married. It misses the fact that there are now very few reasons for a happy,
two-earner household with children to actually get married. Marriage papers
are in no way a required part of a stable and loving relationship.

People don't often get married today unless there's some real political
benefit to them: inheritance is becoming less important and free movement of
labour is now one of the major motivators.

~~~
wavefunction
Until your significant other gets injured and you try to show up at the
hospital to make the decisions any married couple is allowed to make. That is
_one_ of the issues you will face as an unmarried "partnership."

This is also the reason why those uppity gays are not content with the crumbs
of "social unions." Non-married couples do not have the same rights as married
couples.

 __of course this is US-centric __

~~~
innguest
Why can't non-married couples give each other power-of-attorney for those
things? I ask this not rhetorically.

~~~
tommorris
They can. It's expensive and often doesn't work when you need it most. Lots
and lots of long-term gay couples can attest to the expense, complication and
ineffectiveness of trying to replicate marriage through contract law and other
civil deeds.

------
busterarm
Not entirely unrelated to the discussion, it's the usual time of year where I
get furious about the large financial penalty that I pay the government for
being single and without child.

I want to punch any public figure in the face who thinks "promoting marriage"
is a good idea because "promoting marriage" is already a cultural institution
signed into law.

I've already worked out the math: If I could manage a cheap enough birth or
adoption, I would save a significant amount of money by having a crotchfruit.
Of course the former requires a willing co-conspirator.

I used to work with a guy who made $14/hr and his wife didn't work and they
had 7 kids. For years I couldn't understand how he could possibly make ends
meet until I looked at the tax credits he was getting and understood that
"economies of scale" kind of works for feeding and clothing children.

Edit: Rayiner, since it won't let me reply to you on a dead topic. Married
people can and do cheat on their taxes all the time. I know at least a dozen
married couples where both file as single and only one claims the dependents.
As for social security, the future there is looking pretty grim and the
intergenerational continuity concept breaks down (and already has) when an
unusually large older generations' votes and financial means allow them to
skew the balance in their favor. This idea that I'm selfish because I haven't
had kids yet is one that makes me angry and the linked article actually
touches on many of the reasons...to the effect of: "because you were born poor
and haven't been able to become successful enough to be desirable to mate
with, you deserve to continue to be poor."

~~~
kbenson
_Married people can and do cheat on their taxes all the time. I know at least
a dozen married couples where both file as single and only one claims the
dependents._

Married people are allowed to file separately, and the law is that only one
can claim each dependent. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statement, but I'm
not sure how that's cheating on taxes.

 _the intergenerational continuity concept breaks down (and already has) when
an unusually large older generations ' votes and financial means allow them to
skew the balance in their favor._

How does that break down intergenerational continuity?

 _This idea that I 'm selfish because I haven't had kids yet_

You seem to be making this very personal. I'm not sure where you get that from
the official sources. Simply put, having a younger generation is beneficial to
society. It's also a strain on those families that decide to have children. As
a society we subsidize them because they provide a long-term benefit.

 _I 've already worked out the math: If I could manage a cheap enough birth or
adoption, I would save a significant amount of money by having a crotchfruit.
Of course the former requires a willing co-conspirator._

I suspect you are _vastly_ underestimating the actual costs of children. For
example, the cost of daycare (unless you want to forego one of your incomes)
is ~$1000/month where I live. Additionally, the requirements for certain jobs
are not longer acceptable, which limits opportunities to some degree. If you
are needed to help raise children at home, working for a startup that requires
long hours or a job that has you away from home for significant time most
likely won't work out well for either your personal or professional life, take
your pick.

~~~
busterarm
"cheat" as in "eliminate marriage's tax burden" in response to the parent
commenter's assertion. Single childless people get maximum tax penalties
always.

Yes, in many ways it's personal but likely not for the ones you think.

As for "vastly underestimating costs of children", not at all. My brother is
quite poor and has a teenaged child and I've been managing his family &
business finances for well over the past decade. Yes they file separately for
a significant tax savings. I know exactly what it costs and I will tell you
that the costs for a middle class family and a poor family are quite
different. If you are living in California, working for startups and can even
_consider_ daycare then you are in a vastly different situation from where I
live, where teen moms and being poor are the norm. Full-time, year-round
employment is rare here. But of course, the tax penalties & benefits are the
same for your filing status no matter what the actual situation is.

Over here, often it's grandma taking care of the kids and the $3000 refund
check the typically-single mother gets go to drugs and tattoos.

So here I am, working my butt off, not having kids I can't take care of...and
even in the years where I have 0 withholding exemptions, the government
decides that they need more money from me than they've taken and there's no
wiggle room or options for me to do anything about it.

I'm working class and marriage and raising kids aren't even a reasonable thing
to consider. I'd love more than anything to have a family. My only solution is
to find a way to earn more money.

I wish it could be properly explained to white middle-class folks that in most
cases "born poor stays poor"

~~~
kbenson
_If you are living in California, working for startups and can even _consider_
daycare then you are in a vastly different situation from where I live, where
teen moms and being poor are the norm._

In which, depending on the state, they probably qualify for subsidized
daycare.

 _Over here, often it 's grandma taking care of the kids and the $3000 refund
check the typically-single mother gets go to drugs and tattoos._

If you are going to say stuff like that, make a real assertion and back it up,
or leave it out. I have no idea what "often" means to you, and I have no clue
the veracity of your claim.

 _I 'm working class and marriage and raising kids aren't even a reasonable
thing to consider. I'd love more than anything to have a family. My only
solution is to find a way to earn more money._

Didn't you earlier say it saved money?

 _I wish it could be properly explained to white middle-class folks that in
most cases "born poor stays poor"_

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. _But what does that have to do with what
we are talking about?_

------
etanazir
It is typically more efficient to share spaces like a kitchen than for each to
have their own.

~~~
VLM
Carried to its logical extreme you end up with some kind of polyamorous tribe.
Not that I'm complaining.

------
maerF0x0
It surprises me that such a logical author thinks that good marriages have
much (if anything) to do with picking the "right person" so to speak. It seems
to me that:

1) Its damn near impossible to guess at what a person will be like 10-50 years
from now. On some level its a crap shoot, and marriage is about learning to
love whom they become. Hopefully that plays out on both sides of the coin
(each spouse continues to love whom the other becomes). 2) "Good" and "Bad"
marriage mostly has to do with how people fight/interact (see stuff by John
Gottman). People will always fight over money, kids, laundry duties etc, but
their satisfaction in the relationship will have more to do with how they
fight, than what they fight over. 3) Individuals have total control over whom
they fall in love with. IIRC the cascading brain chemicals involved with love
that override logic from occurring properly: [http://www.mikelee.org/the-
science-of-love-chemicals-and-rom...](http://www.mikelee.org/the-science-of-
love-chemicals-and-romance.html) .

------
patrickg_zill
The thing is, that marriage (Marriage 1.0) of say 50 years ago, is not the
same as marriage today (Marriage 2.0). The laws and societal norms are
different.

So it is not clear then, if the incentives to be married have changed (I think
they have, based on my observation); if some part of the "math" is different,
then, that would explain why the marriage rates are different.

------
twoodfin
Thus post seems to be arguing against programs that would push people into
marriages they'd otherwise avoid via financial or other incentives.

I read the "marriage promotion" agenda more charitably: Marriage is hard.
Financial pressures make it harder. Reduce those pressures and more marriages
are likely to be successful. And while I can't cite research here, the author
himself acknowledges that a successful marriage is a desirable state for many
people. He emphasizes the additional risks involved — What if your inlaws get
sick? — but the addition of an earner/caretaker/constant companion also
provides a hedge against a variety of existing economic, health and social
risks.

~~~
pekk
Why is it more important to subsidize successful marriages than successful
lives in general?

------
midas007
A friend of mine has a great idea about how to approach marriage: don't unless
you've dated for several years AND want to have (or already have) kids. If
either condition fails, don't. Just don't.

~~~
_delirium
That's pretty common in my social circles. Could just be a Scandinavian thing,
but mostly people get married when some legally relevant change in their lives
is coming up. The two most common are having kids, or moving to another
country where visa issues might be more complex if you're unmarried. It's not
the _only_ time people get married, and I do know married couples who don't
have kids and don't plan to move abroad. But most of the couples I know who
don't fall into those categories (including some who've been together for many
years) haven't gotten married. To be honest even a number with kids haven't
gotten married, despite still being together and raising the kids together.

------
yetanotherphd
I agree that statistical correlations of marriage with various outcomes are
very weak evidence of a causal effect.

However, I hope that people will apply this logic to ideas that come from both
the left and right, e.g. the NYC ad campaign against teen pregnancy.

The same applies to the general principal that the government should not
promote particular lifestyle. If girls want to get pregnant at 18, how is that
any more the government's business than if they want to not get married?

------
Flimm
The comments on that article are definitely worth reading.

------
seanhandley
Take this discussion to MumsNet or something?

I don't see how it's befitting Hacker News.

------
andyl
Marriage is an anachronism - a form of oppression at odds with the consumer
society that we worship.

Hey - time for my Soma!

