"Poor white people are three times as likely to be in single-parent households compared to their middle class counterparts, versus poor blacks who are twice as likely."
You are trying to say that single-parenthood is a poverty thing, and poor whites are even *relatively* more likely to be single parents. I read this a different way. Namely, that single-parenthood and poverty seem *less* related for blacks than for whites. In other words, sky-high black single parenthood is not solely explained by poverty. That is black single-parenthood shows more persistence even as we consider only higher income families.
It's telling that you then write
"So this blows the conservative arguments out of the water."
Does it? When you write like that, you sound deeply biased. You don't seem the least bit open to the idea that anything other than poverty can contribute to black single-parenthood, even as a secondary factor. You don't admit any nuance to that discussion and chide anyone who disagrees as "victim blaming conservatives". Who is exactly are you trying to reach like this?
[2] Why does poverty induce a woman to give birth out of wedlock? They clearly opt for that path much more often than their higher-earning peers. A substantial component of this is independent of race. Postponing family formation doesn't cost anything. Clearly, you want Washington to solve poverty. Ok. It seems plain to me that, one way or another, different set of values is inculcated in the middle class than is for the poor. It's OK to talk about that. Why are you always so black and white? We can talk about helping people regardless of their choices and also try to identify those problematic choices and think about how to nudge people in a more sensible direction.
I have been meaning to write this article, also Europe has a way more welfare, and less single parent holds, and all former slave countries have way more single parenthood look at Black single parents in Brazil. Even neoliberals like Larry Summers admitted in his Brook institute report that welfare is not the cause. I will say this though that a lot of people are not marrying their babies father not because, the dad is useless or abusive, but because the relationship is not romantically optimal( the guy is boring or not romantic enough) I know plenty of people who are on good terms and speak highly of their babies father. I do think this maybe problematic, and that society would be better off if these people did not have children or choose to raise their kids in a less than optimal romantic relation, as long as it’s not toxic or abusive. This is hard to quantify in the data, but anecdotally this seems to be the case
Nailed it. The blame on the American nuclear family is an under-discussed topic that I hope you explore further. The explanation as to why Blacks can't do better than certain immigrant groups is well explained for this very reason; because these immigrant groups live together. Now this makes sense. The only way you can really succeed in this model is through a rigged system, which is what whites had. Immigrants refused to play that game.
But it's not just the financial disadvantage that nuclear families create. They're also bad for mental health, youth development, elder care, and behavior. Humans are meant to have multiple generations living in proximity. Cousins and aunts and uncles and obviously grandparents need to help raise children. It really does take a village. This almost uniquely American idea that children need to move out at 18, and families are geographically separated, is damaging. Want to decrease youth crime? Improve a family's finances? Show me the successful ethnic group, and I'll show you an overbearing, nosy, and loud household. Remember the movie"My Big Fat Greek Wedding"? It shows all of this.
I grew up in the East Bay just like you, Darrel. And there are so, so many examples of immigrant groups that have risen economically whose similar trait is that of a tradition of multigenerational household. Italians, Portuguese, Indians, Pakistanis, Greeks, Japanese, Mexicans, Ethiopians, Persians, and my favorite example, Afghans. This crew was from a damn near different planet. But like the others, their multigenerational households also come with financial networks whose guarantee is their own family name. In school we thought they were strange and unruly; as grown ups my friends that have married into those families think it was the best move they ever made.
The good news is, I'm seeing this change through ADUs, intermarriage, and visibility. Want your parents to take a more active role in their grandkids? Tell them that your kids are spending more time with the others. More and more housing developments are including, literally granny units.
It may be hard to quantify, but empiric observation would suggest the deindustrialisation of America and the reduction and elimination of gainful employment and its associated living wage has a significant contribution on black and white families. Being poor is one long, never ending emergency.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. Two remarks--
[1] You write:
"Poor white people are three times as likely to be in single-parent households compared to their middle class counterparts, versus poor blacks who are twice as likely."
You are trying to say that single-parenthood is a poverty thing, and poor whites are even *relatively* more likely to be single parents. I read this a different way. Namely, that single-parenthood and poverty seem *less* related for blacks than for whites. In other words, sky-high black single parenthood is not solely explained by poverty. That is black single-parenthood shows more persistence even as we consider only higher income families.
It's telling that you then write
"So this blows the conservative arguments out of the water."
Does it? When you write like that, you sound deeply biased. You don't seem the least bit open to the idea that anything other than poverty can contribute to black single-parenthood, even as a secondary factor. You don't admit any nuance to that discussion and chide anyone who disagrees as "victim blaming conservatives". Who is exactly are you trying to reach like this?
[2] Why does poverty induce a woman to give birth out of wedlock? They clearly opt for that path much more often than their higher-earning peers. A substantial component of this is independent of race. Postponing family formation doesn't cost anything. Clearly, you want Washington to solve poverty. Ok. It seems plain to me that, one way or another, different set of values is inculcated in the middle class than is for the poor. It's OK to talk about that. Why are you always so black and white? We can talk about helping people regardless of their choices and also try to identify those problematic choices and think about how to nudge people in a more sensible direction.
I have been meaning to write this article, also Europe has a way more welfare, and less single parent holds, and all former slave countries have way more single parenthood look at Black single parents in Brazil. Even neoliberals like Larry Summers admitted in his Brook institute report that welfare is not the cause. I will say this though that a lot of people are not marrying their babies father not because, the dad is useless or abusive, but because the relationship is not romantically optimal( the guy is boring or not romantic enough) I know plenty of people who are on good terms and speak highly of their babies father. I do think this maybe problematic, and that society would be better off if these people did not have children or choose to raise their kids in a less than optimal romantic relation, as long as it’s not toxic or abusive. This is hard to quantify in the data, but anecdotally this seems to be the case
Nailed it. The blame on the American nuclear family is an under-discussed topic that I hope you explore further. The explanation as to why Blacks can't do better than certain immigrant groups is well explained for this very reason; because these immigrant groups live together. Now this makes sense. The only way you can really succeed in this model is through a rigged system, which is what whites had. Immigrants refused to play that game.
But it's not just the financial disadvantage that nuclear families create. They're also bad for mental health, youth development, elder care, and behavior. Humans are meant to have multiple generations living in proximity. Cousins and aunts and uncles and obviously grandparents need to help raise children. It really does take a village. This almost uniquely American idea that children need to move out at 18, and families are geographically separated, is damaging. Want to decrease youth crime? Improve a family's finances? Show me the successful ethnic group, and I'll show you an overbearing, nosy, and loud household. Remember the movie"My Big Fat Greek Wedding"? It shows all of this.
I grew up in the East Bay just like you, Darrel. And there are so, so many examples of immigrant groups that have risen economically whose similar trait is that of a tradition of multigenerational household. Italians, Portuguese, Indians, Pakistanis, Greeks, Japanese, Mexicans, Ethiopians, Persians, and my favorite example, Afghans. This crew was from a damn near different planet. But like the others, their multigenerational households also come with financial networks whose guarantee is their own family name. In school we thought they were strange and unruly; as grown ups my friends that have married into those families think it was the best move they ever made.
The good news is, I'm seeing this change through ADUs, intermarriage, and visibility. Want your parents to take a more active role in their grandkids? Tell them that your kids are spending more time with the others. More and more housing developments are including, literally granny units.
Please stay on this topic.
It may be hard to quantify, but empiric observation would suggest the deindustrialisation of America and the reduction and elimination of gainful employment and its associated living wage has a significant contribution on black and white families. Being poor is one long, never ending emergency.