

Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids - jeffreyrogers
http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Robert-Putnam-Save-the/228443/

======
dzdt
The last few decades in the US have seen a shift from 1 parent working
sufficing to support a family to 2 parents working beening needed for middle
class living, and longer hours than before. And more kids have only 1 parent
in the household. There simply isn't time for participating in the community-
building activities that filled the gaps before. So we are more isolated, and
people's lies are in a more fragile balance.

~~~
dominotw
I know lots of my friends have families where single income would sustain them
but both husband and wife go to work.

We have stigmatized staying at home and raising children as a society.

~~~
paganel
I'd say is a net positive for society that women nowadays are more financially
independent compared to the 1960s-1970s. Consider it this way, you're a stay-
at-home mom who has decided to focus on her kids in her later 20s, and then
you're 40 and divorce happens.

In the happy case your ex-husband and father to your kids still pays for their
education and food and relared stuff, but what about you and your own
financial needs? Now that you've been out of the work-force for 10+ years
you're basically unemployable.

~~~
Domenic_S
> _then you 're 40 and divorce happens_

Magic happens here?

> _what about you and your own financial needs?_

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony)

Regardless, there is a sneaky equivocation of women in the workplace & two-
income households. Obviously women, as fellow humans, do and should have the
choice to work outside the home if they want. But IMO _one_ parent should stay
home. Is it any surprise that it takes the salary of two people to buy an
average house? Things just get more expensive to take advantage of the
increased income, and the net result is we spend more time working. Not a net
positive.

------
msandford
I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of
the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except
maybe in a "don't feed the wild animals" sort of way, but most consider that
negligible). But more in a "somebody else's problem" or a "bystander effect"
sort of way.

In other words, the existence of programs to help people in need -- and worse,
large federally funded and administrated programs -- make people feel as
though it's not their problem and also that they're already doing something to
help: paying their taxes and not voting against these programs. I say large
federally funded programs are worse only because that makes the responsibility
far more diffuse and the ability to influence ever more limited.

So the programs to help aren't directly bad, but the knock-on psychological
effect is that they absolve people of any personal need to help (since they're
already helping in a very vague and miniscule way) and that leads them to not
take any (additional) direct action.

It feels like the inverse case of the tragedy of the commons.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)

~~~
germinalphrase
Do you believe that our population would effectively self-educate without
gov't funded education?

~~~
mrwarn
Do you believe our population is effectively educated with government funded
education?

~~~
germinalphrase
No, I don't. However, I believe this is a problem associated with how we
approach education as a task rather than how we fund it.

If it were merely an example of "gov't funded education" causes poor education
then we would likely see significant gains when private education models are
used to replace public schools. Currently, gains with private/charter schools
are flat compared to public schools.

I do, however, believe that in absence of a publicly funded education system a
large segment of our population would simply be locked out of educational
opportunities. How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities
going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?

~~~
msandford
> How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find
> an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?

You do realize that those people already do pay for their children's education
right? It's just indirect through property taxes.

Yes people who don't have kids in school also contribute but it's not as
though there are 10x as many people without kids as with kids, it might be
50/50 kids/no kids meaning that the best you can get is a 50% "discount" over
directly funding instead of funding via taxes.

~~~
germinalphrase
Setting aside that progressive taxation probably means that the population I
was discussing isn't significantly funding their children's education (and
would likewise not be able to cover the actual cost of education if they were
called on that burden) -- I was responding to mrwarn's comment asking if _gov
't funded_ education is working, to which I responded that public schooling is
not working, but that the problem is not dependent on the source of funding.

When we turn public schools into private schools (as Chicago has done by the
dozens in the last few years) we don't see educational improvements when the
students population remains the same. When we do, it's modest or an outlier
(and education is filled with outliers).

~~~
msandford
Education is almost 100% funded by property taxes and sales taxes. Property
taxes are a tax on the value of the property, not on your income or your
equity in the property, but based on the "fair market value" of the property.
Sales tax is based on the value of the transaction.

Everyone lives somewhere, and somewhere basically always has a value attached
to it. Maybe run down apartments aren't worth as much as fancy new ones, but
property tax still has to be paid.

Even if you rent, you still pay property taxes. The owner of the apartment
considers property taxes as a part of his/her expenses the same way a
mortgage, insurance, maintenance, etc are expenses. Those expenses get rolled
into the rent.

Sales taxes are largely regressive, because any money saved is by default not
going to get any sales tax applied. And poor people spend a larger portion of
their income on things which are taxed than wealthier people do; look at the
whole "buying experiences" advice that well-to-do participate in. Those are
generally arranged as "services" which aren't taxable, rather than products,
which are.

Progressive taxes are generally based on income, not property value or
transaction value. As a result, funding for education is currently borne
fairly evenly amongst people who both have an address and buy things, no
matter their income level.

------
carsongross
A strong, common culture is the only historically verified way to escape the
prisoners dilemma of social interactions. We've done a pretty good job of
destroying that for the last fifty years in the west.

"We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

~~~
saturdaysaint
Yet violence has dropped impressively in the west in the last 50 years, both
in crime statistics and in the absence of wars between major powers. And the
last 50 years mark many incredible advancements in society: civil rights, gay
rights, women's rights, the first attempts to take sexual violence seriously,
etc. etc. etc. I'd much rather be a random American today than 50 years ago.

~~~
Kurtz79
Agreed.

I cringe when people say how things are going for the worse constantly.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Sometimes it's because things are objectively worse. Cringing doesn't change
the facts.

The original claim that we're less violent is easy to debunk, and has been
debunked by many people. See e.g.

[http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/john-gray-
steven-...](http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/john-gray-steven-
pinker-violence-review)

But more than that, it's clear that economics and politics have become prime
vectors for social violence in the 'developed' West: particularly economics,
which has been used as an ideological excuse to destroy the possible future
prospects and current living conditions of entire generations now.

Unemployment in - say - Spain for the under-25s is more than 50%. The rate in
the US is around 12%, but that disguises the fact that many 'jobs' barely pay
a living wage now, where fifty years ago even starter jobs offered comfortable
salaries.

The destruction has been justified by a steady stream of _clearly wrong_
'economic theories' that don't stand up to even the most basic undergraduate-
level scrutiny. See e.g.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt)

So yes - things are objectively worse for many people.

The fact that some people are doing okay and a tiny minority are doing really
well doesn't change that.

Getting this stuff wrong has very real long-term social and political
consequences. It's irrational to ignore that.

~~~
TulliusCicero
> even starter jobs offered comfortable salaries.

Source?

~~~
21echoes
one good metric: minimum wage used to be 40% higher
[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-minimum-wage-
falls-e...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-minimum-wage-falls-every-
year--heres-how-to-fix-that-2013-12)

------
littletimmy
The key to well functioning kids is involved parents.

The key to involved parents is less time spent working.

Americans need to get over their fetish for hard work and start staying home
more. Or just stop having kids altogether and use work as the primary source
of joy.

~~~
thehoff
That sounds great from where you may sit but what about those families where
the parents have to work long hours just to provide?

I know there are some that are definitely not in a financial position where
they can do that. Working less is just not an option when you are barely
making ends meet. And trust me, they would love to spend more time with their
kids.

