It is true that improvements to the social safety net and general services like education and transportation will not benefit every child of divorced parents equally, but the proportion households that would benefit from safety net and general service improvements if their income was split in two is significant. And those benefits would be most dramatic and most concentrated where most needed.
Unfortunately for most people, income is not evenly distributed. Nearly half of US households make <$75k, and less than a quarter make >$150k.
On top of that, divorce rates are higher at lower income levels.
I am not disputing either of those statements, but they don’t seem to pertain to the points the paper was making.
It is true that improvements to the social safety net and general services like education and transportation will not benefit every child of divorced parents equally, but the proportion households that would benefit from safety net and general service improvements if their income was split in two is significant. And those benefits would be most dramatic and most concentrated where most needed.
You’re arguing a completely different topic. I’m not saying your argument is invalid, but that’s not addressing the question I raised. The paper cited pointed out the following three main points:
“The three events — loss of financial resources, a decline in neighborhood quality and missing parental involvement because of distance or an increased workload required to make up for lost income — accounted for 25% to 60% of the impact divorce has on children’s outcomes, the study said.”
@givesomefucks said “Like most things, this is a social safety net system thing…”. I’m looking specifically to how social safety net would fix the three main causes cited in the paper.
The 69 page paper itself contains the word “poverty” only one time, and even then when it was citing the title of a cited source. If income or income distrubution were sizable contributors to the negative outcomes the paper found, I would imagine they would have included them in there list of “three things”. They didn’t. I take that to mean that nearly all children of divorce suffer these three negative consequences and that income distribution doesn’t shield rich kids from them either.
So thats why I’m looking for the argument that @givesomefucks was apparently making (and upvoted by others) that the social safety net lacking is the cause of the paper’s three determined detriments. I’m not seeing it in the article and I’m not seeing comments here explain it either yet with any of these responses.
Unfortunately for most people, income is not evenly distributed. Nearly half of US households make <$75k, and less than a quarter make >$150k.
On top of that, divorce rates are higher at lower income levels.
It is true that improvements to the social safety net and general services like education and transportation will not benefit every child of divorced parents equally, but the proportion households that would benefit from safety net and general service improvements if their income was split in two is significant. And those benefits would be most dramatic and most concentrated where most needed.
I am not disputing either of those statements, but they don’t seem to pertain to the points the paper was making.
You’re arguing a completely different topic. I’m not saying your argument is invalid, but that’s not addressing the question I raised. The paper cited pointed out the following three main points:
“The three events — loss of financial resources, a decline in neighborhood quality and missing parental involvement because of distance or an increased workload required to make up for lost income — accounted for 25% to 60% of the impact divorce has on children’s outcomes, the study said.”
@givesomefucks said “Like most things, this is a social safety net system thing…”. I’m looking specifically to how social safety net would fix the three main causes cited in the paper.
The 69 page paper itself contains the word “poverty” only one time, and even then when it was citing the title of a cited source. If income or income distrubution were sizable contributors to the negative outcomes the paper found, I would imagine they would have included them in there list of “three things”. They didn’t. I take that to mean that nearly all children of divorce suffer these three negative consequences and that income distribution doesn’t shield rich kids from them either.
So thats why I’m looking for the argument that @givesomefucks was apparently making (and upvoted by others) that the social safety net lacking is the cause of the paper’s three determined detriments. I’m not seeing it in the article and I’m not seeing comments here explain it either yet with any of these responses.